I hope I can answer this from a neutral perspective.

The left gave up on implementing global socialism; it was rejecting by the populations of almost every country in the world, when given a democratic choice.

Then climate change came along and with it solid scientific evidence. The left jumped on it as a reason to implement a global anti-capitalist societal change towards the left. Therefore green issues were hijacked by the left, and the right responded by being anti-green.

And that's how we ended up in the absurd situation we are in now.

If you look at "the right" you have:

1. Religious Conservatives that genuinely believe the Earth is 6000 years old and Evolution is a complete fabrication. These people have always been anti-Science. Antivaxxers and climate change denialists are a just the latest round of this.

2. People who are employed or supported by the fossil fuel industry. This is the same unreasonable skepticism that you hear from the Tobacco industry, the Patent trolls, or any other group with alot of money and few scruples. They found allies in "the Right" who could use their campaign dollars and didn't care much about this issue so they just go along with it as it allowed them to get backing for issues they do care about.

3. People who just don't like "the left" and believe that if people they don't like are saying it, it must be false. This is probably the largest bloc. They don't care about climate change (much) and just follow the lead on this issue because the people who are saying "climate change isn't happening" also agree with them on a number of other issues that they do care about.

I'm not sure how we go about fixing it. Its very frustrating.

Conservatives and their fellow-travelers have an obsession with this idea that humans are and should always be completely discreet entities with the fewest inter-connecting responsibilities as possible. It's the ultimate narcissistic ideology. It doesn't help that when people believe that their best interests are when they're divided, they're most easily preyed upon by those who REALLY hold the reins of power. The conservative ideology is Condorcet's Secret writ large.

As you've probably deduced, heading off the worst effects of Climate Change is probably the biggest collective action problem humankind has yet encountered.

Edit: Science doesn't win when you downvote inconvenient questions.

There are a number of theories on what starts and stops ice ages, none of them having to do with human intervention, sure. Does that mean that the rise of CO2, especially if it comes from human activity, shouldn't be reduced now? I think not.

Edit: I'm not arguing against reducing CO2 emissions. I'm just saying that it probably won't happen. That shit will happen. And that, over the long term, natural selection will deal with it all.

Please select your desired counter-point.

- "At least I vaccinate my children."

- "I'm having a dinner party, GMOs and gluten okay?"

- "I'm sure homeopathic hemp water will cure cancer someday."

- "Sorry these responses are so rude. I'm a Sagittarius."

- "I'm not sure what I'm more scared of: chem-trails or nuclear power."

- "After this conversation, my aura will be radiating 'pro-science'."

If you stopped and said to yourself, "I don't believe any of those!" Congratulations, use your new found empathy to find common ground with conservatives who do accept climate change.

It may come as a shock but some people want to help the environment and don't want socialism. Go figure!

As someone who has worked in science for several years, questioning is central to understanding any scientific inquiry--especially with regard to such an incredibly complex and nuanced field as climatology. If these questions are continuously suppressed our understanding will ultimately be skewed.

I only hope that we can continue this discourse on such an important subject without resorting to immediate emotional responses in order to come to the most accurate picture that we possibly can.

And for the most part, people don't want to educate themselves on this issue because you end up being either completely worried about what is happening and discouraged about the future, or you end up having to start examine critically many other points of Conservative ideology which can turn into alot of introspection and work that most people don't want to do.

Two questions to ponder -

Is climate change "good" or "bad"? What causes climate change?

I suspect that the largest driver is solar activity.

Anyway, please keep "left" vs "right" out of this.

Just interested in the magnitude of what's really happening.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment...

And the USA isn't alone

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment...

When the government stops subsidizing fossil fuels 10x more than renewables, look what happens:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/rundow...

But Trump and the Republicans might reverse that again.

"The vast sum is largely due to polluters not paying the costs imposed on governments by the burning of coal, oil and gas. These include the harm caused to local populations by air pollution as well as to people across the globe affected by the floods, droughts and storms being driven by climate change."

It's not that there isn't something important to be discussed there, but if that's the type of subsidy you're referring to when you say "oil is subsidized", it's going to be a messy, inconclusive argument, at least in part because your argument is based on (necessarily) made up numbers.

> When the government stops subsidizing fossil fuels 10x more than renewables, look what happens

No, that's what happens when renewables technology becomes economically competitive, this has nothing at all to do with the subsidy noted above.

"In contrast, estimates from the International Energy Agency (IEA) released in June showed that $557bn was spent by governments during 2008 to subsidise the fossil fuel industry."

...citing a document behind a paywall. So once again, I have no idea what the nature of these "subsidies" are.

From the 3rd:

"But over the course of the parliament, the department has given financial support worth just £3.6m to green energy projects around the world, data released to the Guardian under freedom of information rules shows.

By comparison, UKEF allocated £1.13bn to help fossil fuel energy operations in the same period, 314 times more. The support was in the form of loans, loan guarantees and other export credit support."

Referencing the cited link, one example is: "A US$367 million loan provided to JSC Gazprom to finance an export contract won by Rolls-Royce Power Engineering for the supply and installation of natural gas pumping units for the completion of a new compressor station near Vyborg, Northwestern Russia".

So unless I am mistaken, the entire value of a loan is claimed to be a subsidy. That is beyond intellectually dishonest, and that is just one example of why I do not trust the left, environmentalists, etc - very often, advocates on that side simply do not have a background for critical thought, mathematics, etc; they simply do not have the skills to properly assess the actual nature of many if not most of the things they are criticizing, and in my experience they are most definitely not interested in discussion in order to come to some agreement of what the truth is.

But until then, calling this a "subsidy" of the oil industry is a bit of a mischaracterization. (But not complete, as these costs should most definitely be included in a comprehensive analysis when setting policy.)

2. Domestic jobs, especially in places like North Dakota or Louisiana which wouldn't have nearly the tax base they do without coal and oil jobs.

There are some legitimate criticisms of science to be had, but before I get to those, I would like to talk about the less concrete issues surrounding the problem.

1) The American education system is failing to adequetly inculcate a scientific mindset in the populous.

2) Media filter-bubbles abuse this lack of scientific education to push agendas of one type or another.

3) The poorer population in general and the political right specifically have a social history of distrust, often rightful, of the intelligensia, academia, and the business and political elite.

4) None of these issues are purely tied to any political party, and are much more about social class and social mobility issues rather than left/right false paradigms.

5) Lack of monetary power and what is essentially wage slavery for a vast majority of the populace reduces the amount of time available for people to engage in intellectual pursuit of self-improvement. (combined with the relatively new requirement of both man and woman to work to sustain what formerly a man could sustain, further impacting childrens education)

So that's how you get a group of politically far right people denying climate change in general without any understanding of the issue specifically: first, they haven't done any reading of their own, (due to 1 and 5), the little information they do get is through a corporate/government infiltrated filter bubble (2), and this manifests itself via (3) in the form of complete dismissal of arguments.

Now, on to some more specific scientific criticisms.

A) Scientific quality is not nearly as good as you think. Papers themselves are used to further careers, and less and less are peer-reviewed (or peer-reviewable due to high specialization and/or costs). Journals often have a monetary interest in publishing and do at best lackluster job of editorial filtering, and often the actual science for the general public is behind a paywall despite the fact most of it is publicly funded. That's not even getting into the vast glut of just plain bad science being published, even in good journals. I held science up on a pedestal until as a sysadmin at a genetics company I started actually reading them as a job requirement... bad science abounds and is rarely called out.

B) Scientific claims are often highly exaggerated or misinterpreted by the political and business class for self-interested pursuits. We have all seen this in action, where a paper says something relatively benign but it is taken completely out of context to support some initiative or another.

So that's just a start to answer your many politically charged questions, and I would like to say I do highly protest the divisive and polarizing manner in which you verbalized them. Part of the key probem in this country is this hegellian labeling of the other, whether it is on the right or the left or anywhere in between. Personally, I think the real war is between the up and down factions (eg, the uber-rich and the middle-class and the poor), but your dismissive manner is unlikely to be anything but abrasive to anybody but the most intellectual of the conservatives.

To illustrate a small example of the kind of distrust of intellectuals, allow me to tell a small story: My grandfather was a logger in the rocky mountain forests in the 70's, working with native americans, and I grew up in the national forest. I remember throughout my childhood, him advocating to the forest service along with other old-timer loggers that they needed to allow them to thin-out the forests by selective logging (not clearcutting) or else there would be major issues down the road. All the PHD environmentalists the forest service hired though dismissed all their sage advice and thought they knew better, reduced controlled burn actions to almost nill and thought everything was going swimmingly... until the pine beetle infestation took hold, and then within a 10 year period we had two forest fires that burned 538,049 acres and 468,638 acres respectively. When they happened I remember my grandfathers words, which I had dismissed as crazy old timer talk being dismissive of the scientists awesome knowledge, and realized he was right. That's a good example of the kind of intellectual bubble the scientists can create that fosters mistrust in the lower classes and in the right in particular.

A question I've pondered many, many times. I believe it's because they are angry that businesses have to lose any profits dealing with the effects of producing less pollution.

The rest of your rant sounds like thoughts I've had going on in my mind. In a loop. It drives me crazy some days.

We should call them what they are: Deniers.

Science doesn't have believers and deniers.

If you deny that science is real, that is being a science denier. If you believe that it is real, that is being a science believer.

Because the human mind is extremely susceptible to delusion. Delusions which are more important to the holder than reality.

It's hard to admit that you might very well be wrong. That your well-intentioned actions may very well be causing damage not only to the world, but to you yourself. It's much easier to deny that, and claim (evidence to the contrary) that your intentions are well and good.

Otherwise intelligent and functional people can hold dear the most ludicrous delusions. Because they're emotionally important.

And in the end, emotion over-rules reason for most cases.

Edit No, I don't mean the scientists are delusional. I mean the climate change deniers are. Pay attention, people.