It varies.
A lot of the time when you see it happen, the other side isn't exactly being polite either. Its a battle of "snowflake" vs "moron". In those cases, theres much more at stake admitting your wrong, with much more permenance. You're essentially admitting that not only were your theories on climate change wrong, but that the oppositions view on you is correct, you are a moron. Neither side means this, of course, but thats how it ends up being.
In more polite arguments, denial could down to fear of change, fear of being wrong (essentially the same as the less polite argument, but with the loser thinking that of themselves), or perhaps even just simply not being convinced for whatever reason
You don't understand what you're asking for.
Those are never put in front because that’s not the point. The entire point is to use an issue to acquire power and there’s no reason to believe that power will be used the way you think it will. Especially since it is never described precisely how the problem will be solved. Just “green energy”.
The real issue isn’t how we solve climate change. It’s who gets to control energy policy - tax credits and subsidies and those nice things. And who can mix in their pet issues whine they’re at it. Suddenly solving climate change becomes climate justice because it’s maybe a better formal issue to obtain power with. It’s still bullshit.
Look at the latest bill and it’s climate change parts. It essentially gives rich car owners a bigger refund on buying rich people cars. Go figure - the powerful have managed to serve their own interests and the plebs who put them there cheer them on.
I have yet to hear anybody actually describe what they propose to do to cool down the planet and (supposedly) make it sustainable. I have heard a lot of people insist that we need to raise taxes and redistribute wealth to social justice causes in the name of combatting climate change, though.
If that's the case, you might want to read "sustainable energy without the hot air" [1] which is available free online. It's slightly dated with regards to the cost of solar panels, but a good introduction to the area IMHO.
Plenty of people did just that. You can start with the IPCC reports. A lot of think tanks also published reports focused on specific countries. Not knowing is not an excuse, particularly when so much noise has been made on the subject and so much information is available.
> I have heard a lot of people insist that we need to raise taxes and redistribute wealth to social justice causes in the name of combatting climate change, though.
We (the rest of the world) by and large do not care about your culture wars. The fact that saving the goddamn climate we rely on is somehow controversial is maddening. You collectively sound like children arguing about who started and who’s the meanest.
Trust me, it gets annoying to a lot of us over here too.
I do not believe that. I believe that other species are at risk of extinction, or indeed extinct already, but I think we have enough of a technological and intellectual advantage to avoid extinction. Probably not casualties in the hundred of millions, though.
> I'm still a bit skeptical, in part because of the number of people in actual power who say they believe same thing, but then propose to "fix it" by raising taxes and then not doing anything climate related with all that new tax revenue.
“I am doubtful because politicians do not take it seriously” is not really sound. What your experience shows (rightly, in my opinion) is that a lot of politicians are opportunists with flexible principles, not that the situation is not serious.
And if Roosevelt sat around waiting for all the unconvinceable to be convinced, and didn't enact lendlease, maybe UK and USSR would have fallen and US would face the Axis alone.
Many Americans felt the same way about Hitler and Japan while the Holocaust was happening. It wasn't untill Perl harbour that the penny dropped.
Poor people are more affected by and less able to adapt to climate change.
Poor people increasing their wealth, are doing so by starting to burn fossil fuels. If you don't give an alternative, they're going to scale up their fossil fuel burning as fast as they can
I thought with it literally right there in your face that the denialists would come to some sense. No instead we got, "you can tell you weren't around in 1976, it was worse then", which it wasn't and a basic check would clearly show that's a lie. "Oh the climate is always changing", not at this rate. The usual 'snowflake' ad hominem attack thrown in too. I don't even understand what even is the point of this head in sand strategy.