Why are there so many global warming sceptics in USA?

[D H]

The conversation evolved to American are ignorant and then went further to they are stupid.

A certain segment of the US population is ignorant (intentionally so), stupid, and easily duped. This segment: White evangelical Christians. This is the group that feels most threatened by science and is most likely to reject science. They reject biology, geology, astronomy, and climatology, all because those sciences conflict with their faith.

 

Because of their intentional ignorance and irrational beliefs, they are easily duped, and they are being duped by two key groups. One group is those industries that have a lot to lose should climate change legislation be passed. They are spending lots of money to battle this legislation. The other group is the far right conservative movement. They have lots to gain if they can create a boogeyman to be feared and voted against. They've done this with immigrants, with the word "liberal", with environmentalists, and with climate scientists.

 

Remove those white evangelical Christians from the mix and US views on the existence and cause of global warming isn't that far removed from views elsewhere.

[Essay]

So someone like myself has great doubt that a problem of this magnitude can be successfully solved. The USA's economy and energy sectors are up for a overhaul that has never been done before with the exception of 1930 - 1945. It seems unlikely most American will sacrifice themselves to either self imposed economic hardship of permanent levels or reduced quality of life for any extended period. If you screw this up there's probably no coming back in the short term. To accomplish this it looks like one irrational group will be in charge while supervised by a very small group of rational experts.

 

So I do not agree that rearranging the deck chairs is an accurate analogy. I would propose instead that you are sure you see an ice berg and you are willing to risk changing coarse through a submarine mine field to avoid it. arc

 

P.S. I really enjoy talking to everyone. You have a great thing going here.

...Right, there are also the religious-based denialists, as DH mentions; and

......and Split Infinity probably also knows that the military is looking for renewable fuel resources they can use in the field.

So Arc,

That sounds very reasonable, and I think I agree with what you've said and your take on the various groups. I know that many people who take (and vote) the "liberal" perspective, also go in for crop circles, ufos, and crystal healing powers, as if it were also mainstream well-established science. Everybody seems to have at least one irrational contribution to their being asa whole.

I'd also agree that many of those new-age types don't have a reality-based understanding of the climate change problem; but just accept the doom-n-gloom predictions of scientists, since it does support their contention that unbridled Capitalism is driving civilization off of a cliff.

As with any complex "wicked" problem, you can't expect consensus or a "silver bullet" type of solution; and so doing nothing differently, while waiting for certainty, is a trap to be avoided. Immigration and Health Care are similarly wicked problems, and those are just problems at a "national" level. It's not surprising that action on a global level is difficult.

On that recently repeated NOVA show, about Ape Intelligence, they mentioned that a major difference between us and them was how we can cooperatively hold "shared goals, based on shared commitments." I don't get too concerned about how people justify or rationalize their commitment to a commonly recognized goal, but I'm always happy to help them learn more about the details of why the goal is important or how their commitment can help... as if 350 ppm would really solve our problems--lol! But achieving 350 ppm would be a huge step in the right direction; and so, whatever rationalization one adopts, it is a worthy goal.

===

If only we could stop our forward progress... but we can't; so I'd vote for turning our metaphorical Titanic into the minefield and utilizing our best eyes forward to try picking one slim chance of a route into safer waters. When people cooperate on a shared goal, they can create a different future for themselves. That doesn't work out so well when short-term or isolated ideological goals are pursued, but our varied management of fire (energy), land (agriculture), and civilization itself, are better examples of successful cooperation.

We are really just talking about continuing our development of "techniques" to better manage fire, land, and civilization. And specifically, we are not talking about "self imposed economic hardship of permanent levels or reduced quality of life for any extended period." ...even if we deserve some.... I mean, c'mon, there ain't no free lunch--right? But it's also not about banning fossil fuels!

Last century, we got rich beyond the avarice of kings, by developing a technological world that would be the envy of gods; and now we get to do it again! Sure the people who had careers making buggy whips had to adjust, but the Titan of History can't stop its forward progress. We do need to recognize the value of carbon, in a more "reality-based," comprehensive assessment, sort of way; but there are new technologies and economic sectors itching to be borne into the future, based on that more reality-based management of resources.

===

For liberals, I highlight the ecological dangers... and the opportunities to finally solve global problems of poverty, hunger, disease, and oppression... related to not acting, or acting on climate change, respectively. And for conservatives, I highlight the economic dangers... and the opportunities to create new jobs, new markets, technological innovations, and new economic sectors... again, related to not acting or acting--to account for physical reality--respectively.

Most people don't know the details of that physical reality, or exactly how it endangers our ecosystems and our economies. Even when people want to understand the relationships, they still are often overwhelmed by the complexities and details and science. It would be like wanting to understand all the details of how chemotherapy or vaccines or antibiotics work; for most people they are satisfied accepting the accumulated scientific wisdom.

===

...But more on topic:

American Exceptionalism is a reality, whether it is for good or not; and whether it is based on irrational rationalizations or fundamentalistic ideologies, the American mindset is an exceptional one asa whole. Only Ausie Exceptionalism comes close to being as extreme as ours, istm. Of course, they are both countries mostly formed from the misfits and rejects of an "old, established" civilization.

As mentioned in post #2, when core beliefs or fundamental perspectives are challenged and undone, the "grieving process" must occur--for which the first stage is Denial--as one struggles to cling to the safety and comfort of the familiar past.

The bigger they are, the harder they fall... or the harder their adjustment will be, and the stronger their denial will thus be.

Challenging that American Exceptionalism, which is based on Free-Market Fundamentalism, leads to an "exceptional" grieving response, and thus an exceptional denial response; followed by exceptional anger [2nd stage] responses, if you keep pushing.

Liberals quickly move on to the third, so-called "bargaining," stage.

It is a bit more exceptional in many Americans than in others; but Denial is still just part of the normal grieving process.

~

Edited June 16, 2013 by Essay

[SplitInfinity]

 

...Right, there are also the religious-based denialists, as DH mentions; and

......and Split Infinity probably also knows that the military is looking for renewable fuel resources they can use in the field.

So Arc,

That sounds very reasonable, and I think I agree with what you've said and your take on the various groups. I know that many people who take (and vote) the "liberal" perspective, also go in for crop circles, ufos, and crystal healing powers, as if it were also mainstream well-established science. Everybody seems to have at least one irrational contribution to their being asa whole.

I'd also agree that many of those new-age types don't have a reality-based understanding of the climate change problem; but just accept the doom-n-gloom predictions of scientists, since it does support their contention that unbridled Capitalism is driving civilization off of a cliff.

As with any complex "wicked" problem, you can't expect consensus or a "silver bullet" type of solution; and so doing nothing differently, while waiting for certainty, is a trap to be avoided. Immigration and Health Care are similarly wicked problems, and those are just problems at a "national" level. It's not surprising that action on a global level is difficult.

On that recently repeated NOVA show, about Ape Intelligence, they mentioned that a major difference between us and them was how we can cooperatively hold "shared goals, based on shared commitments." I don't get too concerned about how people justify or rationalize their commitment to a commonly recognized goal, but I'm always happy to help them learn more about the details of why the goal is important or how their commitment can help... as if 350 ppm would really solve our problems--lol! But achieving 350 ppm would be a huge step in the right direction; and so, whatever rationalization one adopts, it is a worthy goal.

===

If only we could stop our forward progress... but we can't; so I'd vote for turning our metaphorical Titanic into the minefield and utilizing our best eyes forward to try picking one slim chance of a route into safer waters. When people cooperate on a shared goal, they can create a different future for themselves. That doesn't work out so well when short-term or isolated ideological goals are pursued, but our varied management of fire (energy), land (agriculture), and civilization itself, are better examples of successful cooperation.

We are really just talking about continuing our development of "techniques" to better manage fire, land, and civilization. And specifically, we are not talking about "self imposed economic hardship of permanent levels or reduced quality of life for any extended period." ...even if we deserve some.... I mean, c'mon, there ain't no free lunch--right? But it's also not about banning fossil fuels!

Last century, we got rich beyond the avarice of kings, by developing a technological world that would be the envy of gods; and now we get to do it again! Sure the people who had careers making buggy whips had to adjust, but the Titan of History can't stop its forward progress. We do need to recognize the value of carbon, in a more "reality-based," comprehensive assessment, sort of way; but there are new technologies and economic sectors itching to be borne into the future, based on that more reality-based management of resources.

===

For liberals, I highlight the ecological dangers... and the opportunities to finally solve global problems of poverty, hunger, disease, and oppression... related to not acting, or acting on climate change, respectively. And for conservatives, I highlight the economic dangers... and the opportunities to create new jobs, new markets, technological innovations, and new economic sectors... again, related to not acting or acting--to account for physical reality--respectively.

Most people don't know the details of that physical reality, or exactly how it endangers our ecosystems and our economies. Even when people want to understand the relationships, they still are often overwhelmed by the complexities and details and science. It would be like wanting to understand all the details of how chemotherapy or vaccines or antibiotics work; for most people they are satisfied accepting the accumulated scientific wisdom.

===

...But more on topic:

American Exceptionalism is a reality, whether it is for good or not; and whether it is based on irrational rationalizations or fundamentalistic ideologies, the American mindset is an exceptional one asa whole. Only Ausie Exceptionalism comes close to being as extreme as ours, istm. Of course, they are both countries mostly formed from the misfits and rejects of an "old, established" civilization.

As mentioned in post #2, when core beliefs or fundamental perspectives are challenged and undone, the "grieving process" must occur--for which the first stage is Denial--as one struggles to cling to the safety and comfort of the familiar past.

The bigger they are, the harder they fall... or the harder their adjustment will be, and the stronger their denial will thus be.

Challenging that American Exceptionalism, which is based on Free-Market Fundamentalism, leads to an "exceptional" grieving response, and thus an exceptional denial response; followed by exceptional anger [2nd stage] responses, if you keep pushing.

Liberals quickly move on to the third, so-called "bargaining," stage.

It is a bit more exceptional in many Americans than in others; but Denial is still just part of the normal grieving process.

~

 

It is true that some Liberal Groups are advocating Fossil Fuel Bans and that would be going to far but as well some Concervative Groups are trying to tell people that Global Warming is but fantasy...it is not.

 

We have a very real problem that if not dealt with is going to bite us in the ass.

 

Split Infinity

[arc]

Essay, on 16 Jun 2013 - 03:45, said:

 

...Right, there are also the religious-based denialists, as DH mentions; and

......and Split Infinity probably also knows that the military is looking for renewable fuel resources they can use in the field.

 

So Arc,

That sounds very reasonable, and I think I agree with what you've said and your take on the various groups. I know that many people who take (and vote) the "liberal" perspective, also go in for crop circles, ufos, and crystal healing powers, as if it were also mainstream well-established science. Everybody seems to have at least one irrational contribution to their being asa whole.

 

I'd also agree that many of those new-age types don't have a reality-based understanding of the climate change problem; but just accept the doom-n-gloom predictions of scientists, since it does support their contention that unbridled Capitalism is driving civilization off of a cliff.

 

As with any complex "wicked" problem, you can't expect consensus or a "silver bullet" type of solution; and so doing nothing differently, while waiting for certainty, is a trap to be avoided. Immigration and Health Care are similarly wicked problems, and those are just problems at a "national" level. It's not surprising that action on a global level is difficult.

 

On that recently repeated NOVA show, about Ape Intelligence, they mentioned that a major difference between us and them was how we can cooperatively hold "shared goals, based on shared commitments." I don't get too concerned about how people justify or rationalize their commitment to a commonly recognized goal, but I'm always happy to help them learn more about the details of why the goal is important or how their commitment can help... as if 350 ppm would really solve our problems--lol! But achieving 350 ppm would be a huge step in the right direction; and so, whatever rationalization one adopts, it is a worthy goal.

===

 

If only we could stop our forward progress... but we can't; so I'd vote for turning our metaphorical Titanic into the minefield and utilizing our best eyes forward to try picking one slim chance of a route into safer waters. When people cooperate on a shared goal, they can create a different future for themselves. That doesn't work out so well when short-term or isolated ideological goals are pursued, but our varied management of fire (energy), land (agriculture), and civilization itself, are better examples of successful cooperation.

 

We are really just talking about continuing our development of "techniques" to better manage fire, land, and civilization. And specifically, we are not talking about "self imposed economic hardship of permanent levels or reduced quality of life for any extended period." ...even if we deserve some.... I mean, c'mon, there ain't no free lunch--right? But it's also not about banning fossil fuels!

 

Last century, we got rich beyond the avarice of kings, by developing a technological world that would be the envy of gods; and now we get to do it again! Sure the people who had careers making buggy whips had to adjust, but the Titan of History can't stop its forward progress. We do need to recognize the value of carbon, in a more "reality-based," comprehensive assessment, sort of way; but there are new technologies and economic sectors itching to be borne into the future, based on that more reality-based management of resources.

===

 

For liberals, I highlight the ecological dangers... and the opportunities to finally solve global problems of poverty, hunger, disease, and oppression... related to not acting, or acting on climate change, respectively. And for conservatives, I highlight the economic dangers... and the opportunities to create new jobs, new markets, technological innovations, and new economic sectors... again, related to not acting or acting--to account for physical reality--respectively.

 

Most people don't know the details of that physical reality, or exactly how it endangers our ecosystems and our economies. Even when people want to understand the relationships, they still are often overwhelmed by the complexities and details and science. It would be like wanting to understand all the details of how chemotherapy or vaccines or antibiotics work; for most people they are satisfied accepting the accumulated scientific wisdom.

===

 

...But more on topic:

American Exceptionalism is a reality, whether it is for good or not; and whether it is based on irrational rationalizations or fundamentalistic ideologies, the American mindset is an exceptional one asa whole. Only Ausie Exceptionalism comes close to being as extreme as ours, istm. Of course, they are both countries mostly formed from the misfits and rejects of an "old, established" civilization.

 

As mentioned in post #2, when core beliefs or fundamental perspectives are challenged and undone, the "grieving process" must occur--for which the first stage is Denial--as one struggles to cling to the safety and comfort of the familiar past.

The bigger they are, the harder they fall... or the harder their adjustment will be, and the stronger their denial will thus be.

 

Challenging that American Exceptionalism, which is based on Free-Market Fundamentalism, leads to an "exceptional" grieving response, and thus an exceptional denial response; followed by exceptional anger [2nd stage] responses, if you keep pushing.

Liberals quickly move on to the third, so-called "bargaining," stage.

 

It is a bit more exceptional in many Americans than in others; but Denial is still just part of the normal grieving process.

 

~

 

Essay, great points. I think some of that denial, frustration and anger has been appearing in the pro AGW group in the form of mocking and dehumanization of what they view is an inability of group 1 to progress in a rational context. This may be due to a lack of historical understanding of group 1, but more likely is just ad hoc reaction originating out of the frustration and anger dynamic. I would hate to think this is considered rational by its users.

 

The "White evangelical Christians" that DH referred to makes up a portion of Group 1, it is what remains of a larger pre-cultural revolution philosophy that was widely held at one time, it is unlikely to change substantially due to its reduction to a core configuration. I think you will see moderation around some social issues, but it is now pretty homogeneous so they are unlikely to change significantly.

 

I see the pro AGW group as having bigger problems than just group 1's lack of cooperation. Science is actively campaigning the AGW cause while its individual constituents work at their individual vocations that as a whole increase the effectiveness of of locating and extracting oil and gas reserves. From satellites in orbit to deep ocean exploration these systems have required the contribution of uncounted scientist. For all their frustration about the non-scientific public's apathy, the combined contribution of many fields of science continually make oil and gas viable long into the future.

 

There are many a new car purchased with income derived directly and even more indirectly from this source. Does everyone know for sure how much their work contributes to this perpetuation. I'm sure the thought is there on the back of everyone's mind. I remember in 1977 when oil was projected to run out by the end of the decade. It is now extended beyond mine and my children's lifetimes. This is extraordinary considering since that early decadal prediction China has greatly increased its proportion in the world oil market and AGW has been revealed as an eminent threat.

 

I feel the need to use that tired analogy of the Titanic again. The ship was only made possible through the contributions of untold number of scientists who's research in every aspect of state of the art technology made that ship possible. Possible to speed faster than the lookouts could see the dangers beyond.

 

DH, I want to dig into this a little.

"Because of their intentional ignorance and irrational beliefs, they are easily duped, and they are being duped by two key groups. One group is those industries that have a lot to lose should climate change legislation be passed".

 

That has the slight smell of an irrational conspiracy theory.

DH, Those industries employ how many scientist and engineers? Are they accountable for their contribution to these crimes? They knowingly work to make the company successful. Or are they duped also? Or are they willing participants in crimes against society? I'm sure they would all leave if they were not chained to their desks.

 

Its so much like the Nuremberg trials; "I was just following orders. I did not know what was happening".

 

Maybe this denial and grief with a touch of guilt has manifested in a previously undiagnosed group.

 

So it may be that all people have an individual and collective difficulty evaluating their own contribution and responsibility regarding the current situation. And strike out at groups that they have personal issues towards. Maybe an Anthropological attitude would be more constructive.

 

After all who are the ones that are considered the rational ones. arc

[SplitInfinity]

Essay, great points. I think some of that denial, frustration and anger has been appearing in the pro AGW group in the form of mocking and dehumanization of what they view is an inability of group 1 to progress in a rational context. This may be due to a lack of historical understanding of group 1, but more likely is just ad hoc reaction originating out of the frustration and anger dynamic. I would hate to think this is considered rational by its users.

 

The "White evangelical Christians" that DH referred to makes up a portion of Group 1, it is what remains of a larger pre-cultural revolution philosophy that was widely held at one time, it is unlikely to change substantially due to its reduction to a core configuration. I think you will see moderation around some social issues, but it is now pretty homogeneous so they are unlikely to change significantly.

 

I see the pro AGW group as having bigger problems than just group 1's lack of cooperation. Science is actively campaigning the AGW cause while its individual constituents work at their individual vocations that as a whole increase the effectiveness of of locating and extracting oil and gas reserves. From satellites in orbit to deep ocean exploration these systems have required the contribution of uncounted scientist. For all their frustration about the non-scientific public's apathy, the combined contribution of many fields of science continually make oil and gas viable long into the future.

 

There are many a new car purchased with income derived directly and even more indirectly from this source. Does everyone know for sure how much their work contributes to this perpetuation. I'm sure the thought is there on the back of everyone's mind. I remember in 1977 when oil was projected to run out by the end of the decade. It is now extended beyond mine and my children's lifetimes. This is extraordinary considering since that early decadal prediction China has greatly increased its proportion in the world oil market and AGW has been revealed as an eminent threat.

 

I feel the need to use that tired analogy of the Titanic again. The ship was only made possible through the contributions of untold number of scientists who's research in every aspect of state of the art technology made that ship possible. Possible to speed faster than the lookouts could see the dangers beyond.

 

DH, I want to dig into this a little.

"Because of their intentional ignorance and irrational beliefs, they are easily duped, and they are being duped by two key groups. One group is those industries that have a lot to lose should climate change legislation be passed".

 

That has the slight smell of an irrational conspiracy theory.

DH, Those industries employ how many scientist and engineers? Are they accountable for their contribution to these crimes? They knowingly work to make the company successful. Or are they duped also? Or are they willing participants in crimes against society? I'm sure they would all leave if they were not chained to their desks.

 

Its so much like the Nuremberg trials; "I was just following orders. I did not know what was happening".

 

Maybe this denial and grief with a touch of guilt has manifested in a previously undiagnosed group.

 

So it may be that all people have an individual and collective difficulty evaluating their own contribution and responsibility regarding the current situation. And strike out at groups that they have personal issues towards. Maybe an Anthropological attitude would be more constructive.

 

After all who are the ones that are considered the rational ones. arc

 

Arc...it's all about MONEY.....and.....SECRECY.

 

There is no doubt that once a particular member of the House or Senate...get's into bed with large Corps. specific to Fossil Fuel production and distribution by taking campaign contributions from such Corps...and these donations are set up to come from multiple sources under various names...such members of Congress...and they are both Conservative and Liberal...might spout whatever their constituents might need to hear but when it comes down to a VOTE....they might perhaps not show up that day or vote opposite of their stated position on Global Warming with the excuse...I am all for passing legislation to lower CO2 emissions but not at such a cost of loosing jobs for the American Worker.

 

Since there is NO WAY IN HELL that BIG OIL is going to make large contributions to members of Congress who will not play ball...and there is also NO WAY IN HELL...a member of Congress will pass up MILLIONS in campaign contributions as for those who do not know....once a member of congress retires....THEY GET TO KEEP WHATEVER AMOUNT OF MONEY IS LEFT IN THEIR RE-ELECTION WAR CHEST.

 

Since those who are EXTREMELY RELIGIOUS tend to follow and support whatever their congressmen might say if such a member supports legislation specific to Religious Ideals and Beliefs...there is a connection between those who are highly religious and those who do not support any legislation that tries to deal with Global Warming issues.

 

Now as far as SECRECY...a person upon this topic said that I would be aware of High Tech. Clean Energy Generation being developed for U.S. Military use....they are correct.

 

The U.S. Military might just have a working a Low Temp. Micro-Fusion Reactor....but no one here will ever know about it any time soon. The reasoning for this is obvious as such tech. is an issue of National Security....but isn't Global Warming as well?

 

Split Infinity

[iNow]

I am all for passing legislation to lower CO2 emissions but not at such a cost of loosing jobs for the American Worker.

We may lose jobs in the oil industry, but your suggestion here seems to ignore all those new industries and vocations which would be created by us getting off oil. Yes, some people will lose jobs and they will need to find new sources of income, but other jobs get created by making such a shift. It's sort of how the economy is supposed to work. It's called creative destruction, and it strikes me as odd that we prioritize one local grouping of work at the expense of our entire climate and likelihood of survival as a species.

[SplitInfinity]

We may lose jobs in the oil industry, but your suggestion here seems to ignore all those new industries and vocations which would be created by us getting off oil. Yes, some people will lose jobs and they will need to find new sources of income, but other jobs get created by making such a shift. It's sort of how the economy is supposed to work. It's called creative destruction, and it strikes me as odd that we prioritize one local grouping of work at the expense of our entire climate and likelihood of survival as a species.

 

I am not advocating nor do I agree with the statement you quoted...as this statement I typed is what certain members of congress would state.

 

As I stated...the reasoning for such statements are due to...MONEY.

 

Split Infinity

 

We may lose jobs in the oil industry, but your suggestion here seems to ignore all those new industries and vocations which would be created by us getting off oil. Yes, some people will lose jobs and they will need to find new sources of income, but other jobs get created by making such a shift. It's sort of how the economy is supposed to work. It's called creative destruction, and it strikes me as odd that we prioritize one local grouping of work at the expense of our entire climate and likelihood of survival as a species.

 

 

Also...there are currently working and efficient clean energy generation methods specific to Solar, Fusion and a few other Exotic forms that have been developed by the U.S. Military.

 

Solar has been lambasted by some as being too expensive and not efficient or cost effective. THAT...is the Biggest Joke going. As well since it is and has been a long standing goal of the U.S. Military and U.S. Military R&D Groups and Vendors to develop Low Temp. Micro-Fusion Reactors for use in powering Laser Systems and other Military Weapons platforms...it is hard to imagine that the BILLIONS of DOLLARS pumped into such secret programs over multiple decades has not produced a viable system of such energy production.

 

Split Infinity

[Mr Monkeybat]

I suggest that the reason differing popularity of the global warming narrative is this: When you think of big cars you think of America, due to various reasons such as plentiful oil, land, industrial base in the post WW2 period. So when Americans hear someone like Al Gore talking about the evils of cars it feels like an attack on there American identity, and lifestyle. While for Europeans with their fewer and smaller cars in old dense cities it gives them a way to feel good about the ways they are better than Americans instead of as being poorer, and a way to laugh at and hate those stupid evil Americans, which makes them feel better.