Climate Change deniers

[The American]

Even after man-made Climate Change has been proven as a fact, millions of Americans still deny the existence of man-made global warming. Is this the result of effective capitalist propaganda, pure ignorance, or sheer stupidity? Or all three? My father is a smart man, a lawyer, yet he vehemently denies all claims of man made climate change. What could a lawyer possibly benefit from denying the destruction of the environment? Is the profit motive that strong where corporations will willingly ravage the environment for a few million more dollars when they could be using that to install filters and other protections?

[Diello]

Obviously this doesn't go to the root of the problem, but people are glad to enthusiastically agree with the local majority opinion on issues they know next to nothing about. In school, when people (including teachers) were going on about, "This global warming is all made up! There's no real proof! The Bible says that God would never let that happen!", it must have been terribly easy to say, "Yeah! Yeah, that's right!", knowing that there was almost no chance of being held accountable, being challenged, or being asked to provide proof for the position they're endorsing.

Most of the "climate change skeptics" I've known would, I believe, retreat from their views if they were transplanted into an environment where climate change was universally accepted.

In my opinion, most of the people who deny climate change probably know almost nothing about it; whether they're bold, enthusiastic climate change deniers or meek agnostics depends entirely on whether deniers constitute the majority of people in the room.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Even after man-made Climate Change has been proven as a fact, millions of Americans still deny the existence of man-made global warming. Is this the result of effective capitalist propaganda, pure ignorance, or sheer stupidity? Or all three? My father is a smart man, a lawyer, yet he vehemently denies all claims of man made climate change. What could a lawyer possibly benefit from denying the destruction of the environment? Is the profit motive that strong where corporations will willingly ravage the environment for a few million more dollars when they could be using that to install filters and other protections?

It's largely propaganda. Between 2003 and 2008 Washington DC anti-climate change lobbyist numbers increased 400% to something like 1,200*. Corporations fund independent climate-change denying scientists to create the sense of a legitimate "scientific debate" over the validity of something that has been known and confirmed by the vast majority of scientists and even most of the ones working for various governments and the UN. Corporations also set up front groups and think tanks that either promote the idea that climate change is an open debate or propose pro-business "solutions" like increased coal extraction and use. All these arguments then get filtered out into the general population through talk-radio and FOX and even mainstream media that picks-up the reports and information from the think-tanks. Billionaires like the Koch brothers have given many millions of dollars (that they made from the Oil Industry) to promote groups like Americans for Prosperity that deny climate change and fight against new government regulations.

Corporations are not willing to allow anything that will interfere with their ability to make profit or edge-out their competitors - if they can help it. Right now, there is little pressure, so they know they don't have to do that much and what they offer is usually just enviro-lip service or "greenwashing" to make their company look better than it is: BP actually had ads in the 1990s claiming that their unleaded gas doesn't pollute. But they are in a bind, to really change their destructive methods of production would either require funding a green-based development of the 3rd world (which is less dependent on petrol because they have not had 100 years of structuring society around this fuel and they can build new infrastructure that would be less environmentally destructive. It would mean for the first world that is already based on cities for auto-commuting and distribution based on oil-dependent trucking and shipping, doing a 180 which would stop growth while it re-starts on a new basis. Capitalism isn't willing to do either of these things on its own because of imperialist competition and the need for continual economic growth.

*IMO, lobbying alone does not explain government policy because environmentalists lobby too. Just like the pro-Israel lobby, the US supports these politics because it's in US ruling class interests to do so, the lobby just acts as a way to get the politicians on the same page in regards to specific policy and legislation and so on. The corporate "anti-environmental" lobby largely acts as a way for corporations to shape the language of regulations and legislation and push for bullshit like "cap and trade" as opposed to more fundamental attempts at controlling environmental damage.

[bailey_187]

Its not surprising average people want to den climate change considering the solutions most green "leftists" advocate e.g. eat less meat, tax cheap flights, dont drive ur car etc

[Black Sheep]

In school, when people (including teachers) were going on about, "This global warming is all made up! There's no real proof! The Bible says that God would never let that happen!"LOL NOAH'S FLOOD LOL

Big issues,to be accepted and properly understood,there needs to be an organized information campaign.Since the goverments don't give a shit, no wonder the people can fall victim to million-dollar-funded capitalist propaganda.

[Political_Chucky]

You know what before this year I thought it was accepted that global warming and climate change was a buncha B.S. Throw in the fact that Al Gore did that movie and I was pretty damn sure it was some type of scheme. Honestly though, I'm not one who has really cared about the environment and the logic to all this didn't really come from anywhere.

I do believe a lot of it is purely propaganda though. Around this time I had spoke to my friend's neighbor who works as a geologist and he was breaking down the whole global warming thing and how its effecting us. I remember he even told us about california's san andreas fault and how it should be ready to give away at any sec.

Can someone give me some good information though on climate change?

[The Vegan Marxist]

You know what before this year I thought it was accepted that global warming and climate change was a buncha B.S. Throw in the fact that Al Gore did that movie and I was pretty damn sure it was some type of scheme. Honestly though, I'm not one who has really cared about the environment and the logic to all this didn't really come from anywhere.

I do believe a lot of it is purely propaganda though. Around this time I had spoke to my friend's neighbor who works as a geologist and he was breaking down the whole global warming thing and how its effecting us. I remember he even told us about california's san andreas fault and how it should be ready to give away at any sec.

Can someone give me some good information though on climate change?

Whatever you may have against Al Gore politically, his documentary on Climate Change is actually spot-on, comrade. I'll give you a link to this great youtube channel that helped me change from a Climate Change denier to understanding the reality of Climate Change:

http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610

[Red Commissar]

Anyone remember the the shitstorm over "Climategate" that some pundits were claiming showed Climate Change was a fraud? I think we can't overstate the influence the media has in shaping people's opinions on the matter. A lot of people have been guided towards rejecting climate change as an excuse for "big government" to regulate more or more bureaucracy and the like.

If we want to get something constructive we should focus on the media subversion of the whole thing. Saying to those who don't believe in it rather derogatory things just feeds into their conception of "elitism" in environmentalists.

[Vanguard1917]

"Denial" is a concept used by environmentalists --people who, incidentally, would continue to exist and advocate their reactionary political views, perhaps in different forms, whether anthropogenic climate change was real or not, because environmentalism is primarily a phenomenon rooted in social forces, not scientific ones -- to silence disagreement. We have seen this over and again. But science shouldn't work that way. Everything shoud be open to challenge, dispute and counter-evidence. Comparing people who question the dominant view to Holocaust-deniers (which is the clear implication of the whole "denier" business) is an hysterical attempt to shut down debate and is outright hostile in nature to the scientific method.

I personally think that there is good evidence that some man-made global warming has taken place. But it's also true that the issue is far from settled. Something as complex as the earth's climate will always give rise to new information and discoveries. Scientific knowledge is dynamic, not static. You don't just close the books and compare your opponents to Nazis because they dare to raise opposing views.

[Ocean Seal]

Even after man-made Climate Change has been proven as a fact, millions of Americans still deny the existence of man-made global warming. Is this the result of effective capitalist propaganda, pure ignorance, or sheer stupidity? Or all three? My father is a smart man, a lawyer, yet he vehemently denies all claims of man made climate change. What could a lawyer possibly benefit from denying the destruction of the environment? Is the profit motive that strong where corporations will willingly ravage the environment for a few million more dollars when they could be using that to install filters and other protections?
The people are never stupid, but they are susceptible to believe what will allow them to go to sleep without having to worry much. Within a capitalist context the destruction of the environment will continue, and a lifestylist approach only slows down the process, The average American is smart enough to realize that all the bourgeois propaganda on television about conserving more probably won't change the path that the world has taken, and in order to rationalize against an apocalyptic future they decide that it doesn't exist. It's when cognitive dissonance becomes too profound, and people reason that they must be wrong. Its the same as when people look away from poverty and refuse to believe that there are many starving people in the world. They make excuses, like there isn't enough food for everyone (liberals) and starving people are lazy (conservatives).

Also on the point of capitalist propaganda. Most scientists believe that global warming exists by overwhelming margins (49:1) but do you think that people know this? No, of course not, the propaganda against the global warming movement is huge. Watch fox and you'll hear about these left wing (lol) nuts who are trying to make you spend more money on cars by putting in "nanny state" regulations.

[bcbm]

http://www.iwantsomeproof.com/

[scarletghoul]

Maybe people would have more time for this if environmentalists didn't liken their critics to Holocaust Deniers.

Seriously, about 80% of environmentalism's problem is due to their ridiculous approach, maybe 15% due to the opposition of capital and like 5% at most is actually scientific dispute.

Sort it out.

[727Goon]

Maybe people would have more time for this if environmentalists didn't liken their critics to Holocaust Deniers.

Seriously.

I don't know or care much about climate change, but the Nazi comparison is pretty ridiculous.

[The Vegan Marxist]

http://www.iwantsomeproof.com/

That's actually pretty awesome. But the button responses to the facts presented are annoyingly irritating. haha