Is AGW mitigation what really bothers the denialists?

Question

The reason I ask is that I find that many people that deny AGW can't seem to separate suggested mitigation for it from the science of AGW. If it weren't for people telling you you had to change your life (perhaps wrongly) ,would you even care about AGW? I'm thinking you would be ignoring it altogether.

Answer 1

There is absolutely no doubt about it.

I think if they were honest with themselves, most denialists would admit that they don't have any reasonably valid scientific reasons for doubting the AGW theory.  I can understand being skeptical of the theory, but most self-proclaimed 'skeptics' outright reject the theory.  When you consider all the scientific evidence, there is absolutely no reasonable way to reject the theory outright.

At one point or another, the denialsts will invariably start talking about how the 'alarmists' want to make them change their lifestyle and pay a carbon tax and live in a socialist state, etc. etc. etc.  The denialists make far more political arguments than scientific ones.

I have absolutely no doubt that if AGW did not require mitigation, there would be virtually no denialists of the theory.

Answer 2

Yes, it really bothers me that some do gooders want to take my freedom in the name of saving the planet.  I find it particularily bothering that even with global temperatures falling they insist on taking over my life to keep the planet from warming.

I think they should lead by example.  Let the Gorebull warming enthusiast demomstrate their concern by setting a good example.  A good start would be for them to cease their nasty habit of exhaling CO2.

Answer 3

What bothers me is that the mitigation suggestions you make, like drinking organic vodka and turning food into fuel ethanol aren't even going to come close to achieving the desired effect.

Answer 4

you should probably keep in mind, that they like the bush tax cuts, paid for totally by deficits, which have to be paid by their children and grandchildren.

that's stealing from their children.

looked at in that light, of course it's money.

and, can you really trust any answer they might give you at all?

Answer 5

AGW is not science, as science cannot predict the future.  No one can tell you if it will be warmer or colder 5 years from now and show you how they came to this conclusion.

Anything anyone tells you is their belief, their opinion no matter how much they use science to rationalize their judgment.

Why should anyone force their beliefs on others?

It wasn't that long ago that people were positive that at the stroke of midnight on Dec 31, 1999, planes would fall from the sky, and they had science to back up their opinions as well.  That was time and money well wasted, as well as AGW.

Answer 6

The issue is that there is no evidence that we are in fact warming the planet, so why would we "do" something about it?

Answer 7

I spend 100 thousands of dollars on carbon credits to solve my problem with global warming

Answer 8

Nope. I mean yup.  It's because it turns out that the green faires and the hippies were right.  Right about that the American way of wasting everything like there is no tomorrow is not just immoral, its suicidal.

If we got ourselves weaned off of oil, like the 10 year plan we were promised in 1973, the situation today would be very different.  We would have had a 10 year head start instead of 30 years of digging a bigger hole.  The price of petrochemicals would be immaterial.

Egad, what if it turns out they were right about social justice, politics, religion... Too much to swallow.

Answer 9

The science behind global warming is known professionally as 'junk science'...akin to MAD magazine or the National Enquirer.  

All scientists of reputable status reject the wacko hypothesis of global warming and climate change.  The rest are footservants to hypocrisy, begging for cash handouts.

Answer 10

The deniers seem to be so concerned with the great "liberal scam" perpetrated not only by politicians but all the scientists of the IPCC, NASA, and many many others, that they reject the scientific evidence without even taking time to evaluate it.  They dismiss the idea of AGW as a political issue with no scientific basis whatsoever.

I am still amazed at the answers I got from some deniers, for this question:  http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

I can only assume you are correct, that this attitude is a reaction to the major changes that are being proposed to mitigate AGW.

Answer 11

"If it weren't for people telling you you had to change your life (perhaps wrongly) ,would you even care about AGW? I'm thinking you would be ignoring it altogether."

Of course the mitigation aspect of it is what got me interested in the subject at first, and I am sure the same can be said about you--if it wasn't for that, the subject wouldn't have entered the public realm. That does not mean it has influenced my ideas on the subject of climate change. For me, the science of CC and the mitigation aspect (which I think is still necessary, even though I do not agree with parts of the "consensus") are separate.

---------

Edit:

"Actually, no, I find the science of global warming much more interesting than the politics of what to do about it."

So do I, but I do not see where this statement rejects anything I said in my original post. I said the mitigation aspect is likely what got you interested in the subject of GW in the first place, and I think the same can be said for nearly everyone one on Y!A, as well as all the blogs out there on the subject.

Answer 12

Perhaps wrongly?

take a look outside your freaking lab window DR. Frankenstein and see the real world for a moment.

You, the EU Gore and every one else has ran your mouth about this c**p so long, change change change, well now what the h**l are people supposed to change too?

that's what i thought, a lot of empty pipe dreams and Happy feel good c**p that does no one a bit of good.

Lets hope the 'scientist' are the first to starve. Cause it very clear that the trillions in grant money has produced nothing in the past thirty years but more lies and false hope.