Monday, 29 June 2009

What Is The Point Of Climate Change Denial?

Serious question! Other than "being right" if it turned out to be true, what is the point of it? What do climate change deniers think is the best outcome if they got what they wanted?

I know these questions sound confrontational, and I'm not going to pretend I'm on the fence (although I'm not a climate change evangelist either!), but serious, polite answers would be appreciated because all I can find out there on the climate change sceptic sites is evidence against climate change not benefits of fighting climate change legislation versus benefits of it proceeding even if climate change were not true. It leaves me confused as to the motives of the deniers.

Anyone out there willing to point me in the right direction?

This blogger works for nothing but the joy of writing but always appreciates things bought from his wishlist


Elizabeth Barrette said...

If one is making large amounts of money, or gaining power, from the status quo then one has motive to maintain it. That drives many people who would be required to adapt their practices in order to reduce climate change. The problem with their approach, of course, is that the Earth's climate (and therefore economy) will be devastated if they win. Even if climate change per se were not the vital concern it is, destroying the environment has other bad effects which are also causing problems. People have a bad habit of focusing on profit and power to the exclusion of all else, until all else becomes an unignorable disaster.

James said...

I don't believe in man made global warming, or what is now referred to as 'climate change', and the government is spending mega$$$ trying to fight it. It's the same as spending mega$$$ fighting the great spaghetti monster. Plus, the government is forcing many business to have to shut down because they can't afford to upgrade in order to meet the new requirements. That's why our side wants to "win".

Jae said...

So if it is about the money, what is the proposed solution for the reliance of Western countries on foreign energy supply, the awful air quality of some areas, the destruction of our environment by our own stupidity, plastic rubbish getting into OUR food chain, etc? Surely that's going to cost megabucks to sort anyway, if it's done for climate change or if it's done for it's own good?

I can understand being against environmentalism even, the Green movement etc. But the fact is there are real problems that need solving, which climate change legislation has the side benefit of doing. Who is going to clean up our mess, for our own sakes? I'm not talking namby pamby, hug a tree sort of beliefs. But we can't live in a world that's trashed. It isn't going to be cheap.

Jae said...

@Elizabeth, agreed!!

The BoBo said...

The cap and trade legislation that was proposed last Friday had nothing to do with improving the climate or moving towards alternative sources of energy despite what many are saying. I have the full bill on my blog you can download as a .pdf. This particular bill was about increasing taxes on the middle-class and rich and giving that money directly to the poor via direct deposit (see Section 432 of HR 2454). Additionally, Greenpeace was against this bill because it did nothing to improve the environment or reduce emissions. The bill itself states that there will be a 2/10ths of 1 percent reduction in CO2 emissions by 2035.

So- whether one is an environmentalist, global warming believer, or a climate realist who knows climate change is natural and cyclical - this bill was just plain wrong for the U.S. Whatever the real solution is, it wasn't that bill.

Jae said...

@The BoBo Absolutely, we both live in a democracy (albeit different ones) and criticism of Government bills, and Government action are to be encouraged.

I don't think being against this bill, which wouldn't do much for the environment, is anything akin to denying the existence of climate change!

The BoBo said...

You have to define "climate change." If you are stating climate change is man-made - then that would be wrong as all the scientific evidence points to climate being cyclical based on solar activity. The current data indicates we have been in a 10 year cooling cycle with the temps having been flat for the last 3 years. Additionally, the science has now proven that increases in CO2 follows warming periods - not the other way around. It would take forever to post all the links to those sources here. I have them all on my blog in various posts linked to credible sources - NOAA, National Geologic Society, and other scholarly primary sources. If you click on "global warmongering" or "global warming" in my tag cloud it will pull up the various articles.

We are foolish to believe that man can affect and change mother nature - something that has been occurring for millions of years before man ever set foot on this planet. Additionally, CO2 is not a greenhouse gas - it is part of the cycle of life. Without CO2 there would be no plants. Man and earth have a symbiotic relationship. We expel CO2 and the plants take it in. In exchange - the plants produce O2. If we eliminate CO2 we kill life on this planet.

Jae said...

CO2 is a natural part of life. Plants do love it. But when we put out more CO2 than expected, and at the same time remove the very plant life that would thrive on it, isn't that something that needs to be stopped?

Mother nature and Earth aren't "beings". Natural processes ("mother nature") can be and ARE affected by organisms the world over. The idea that nature is some awesome external force is a lie. We are part of nature just as much as a hurricane, a tree or even a meteor strike! Going back to your point about plants, it is not by chance their is oxygen in our atmosphere... before plants it was natural for their to be an extremely low oxygen content but after plants arrived... bingo! Oxygen. They affected "Mother Nature". Just as we can too.

Earth and man are not in a symbiotic relationship. The Earth is a planet, not a living organism, and has no need to have life upon it's surface for it has no needs at all. Earth would be none the worse (if it had an opinion!) if there was no life on it. We are reliant upon the Earth, the Earth is not reliant upon us.

This gets us away from the main point I think.. what I really want to know is, and I didn't really express this I admit, are those who deny climate change denying ANY human affect on the environment? Are they willing to reach into their pockets and pay to stop air pollution, clean up the seas, and make this world a pleasant place to live with abundant food resources? Or is climate change denial just the tip of the iceberg? If climate change is successfully debunked, will they then deny the existence of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, the destruction of our (and that is OUR) forests and other such things.

To be honest, personally, global warming is not something I am too worried about as warming and cooling has always been a factor in life on this planet.What I'm concerned about is that the climate change deniers are not just looking to disprove this theory but also to ignore all the other serious problems we face that affect the quality of life we have fought so long for.

If a bunch of climate change deniers set up an environmental charity that said "Look, climate change is phooey but we know there are things that are really wrong" then I might start thinking that these guys aren't so crazy.