Motives behind global warming skepticism

[tik 🪀✨]

The debate about global warming divides people into two major crowds - those that believe there is no debate and those that insist it's all a gigantic hoax of some kind. The latter cry about how much money we will waste trying to combat this threat that they say doesn't exist. They say the scientific studies are backed by people with selfish motives - they want to increase taxes, they have connections to companies that could profit through the changes passed because of it, and on it goes. The other side offers similar accusations, saying the others are in the pockets of Big Oil™, etc.

Here is what I do not understand about those who insist it's a conspiracy of some kind: Why? Even if there is no such thing as global warming, aren't the changes that would be made beneficial anyway? We need to wean ourselves off of oil and fossil fuels anyway. More restrictions and regulation on industry might hurt the economy for a short time, but these changes need to be made sometime.. why gamble on potential crisis?

I don't know where their motives come from, as it seems to me from a moral standpoint it would be foolish to just 'wait and see'. Do these people simply hate government spending on anything by default? Do they just hate the hassle of having to change their own routine, even if it MAY benefit society otherwise? Is there some wider benefit to not taking precautions or putting in incentives to change that isn't related to their checking account? In the face of potential disaster, isn't it just the right thing to do?

[tik 🪀✨]

The debate about global warming divides people into two major crowds - those that believe there is no debate and those that insist it's all a gigantic hoax of some kind.

What, so there's no group that believes that there may or may not be warming, that if it does exist that the human component may or may not be as significant as some claim, and that there is still ongoing legitimage scientific debate on the subject? Or there's no large group that doesn't believe it but just thinks it's flawed science rather than a hoax? Or people who firmly believe it but acknowledge that there's still legitimate debate going on? There are a lot people inbetween you know.

Piece of advice - don't try to paint things as only black and white. The global warming folks did that and that in my mind is a big reason why the full on opposite reaction (the folks who deny it outright) became significant.

Sorry, I didn't mean to paint the whole scenerio as black and white - I was only referring to those that DO see it as black and white (those convinced it exists vs. those convinced it's a hoax). This thread isn't about the middle ground - by definition there is plenty of rationality for skepticism or concern in the middle ground.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, if you don't believe there's going to be a disaster, why would you prepare for it? If someone believes that global warming isn't occuring (is a hoax or just bad science, doesn't matter either way) or won't cause any major problems then to them it seems a waste to use our resources to prepare for something that to them isn't a problem. Yeah, maybe it has to do with their checking account, but if they don't see a tangible benefit to doing so then it's just going to seem wasteful to them. That's not to say they're correct - they could be dead wrong, but if they legitimately don't see a problem then don't expect them to want to spend money on fixing it.

And of course there are some who probably do think that there's warming but care more about their money, but if money is their priority then don't expect anything different. [/quote]

Of course if you are convinced there won't be disaster you will not be moved to prepare. But if the majority of people believe it's worth preparing for in case or that it coincides with other benefits, why so vehemently oppose them?

It's presumptuous to say the majority believes it's an imminent danger, but I don't doubt most people in the Western world would say it's worth making sacrifices for. I am looking at the fringe opposition and what motivations they have. I see them as a minority getting extremely heated over an issue that, even if overblown, coincides with plenty of benefits. What then causes their hatred?