Why is it that the most vocal skeptics of Anthropogenic Climate Change invariably come..

D

David B

New member
...from the US? Is this because the USA alone is responsible for 22.5%* of the global energy consumption and the prospect of behaviour consequently change seems more painful?

Or is it because the Energy Lobby exerts more influence over the US political system**?

* http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/reports_and_publications/statistical_energy_review_2008/STAGING/local_assets/2009_downloads/statistical_review_of_world_energy_full_report_2009.pdf

**
http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?showYear=2009&indexType=c
 
I have come to discover recently that American republicans are very adverse to change, especially change that may end up costing them a few cents, which I find a little funny, because the more measures my family takes to live green, the more money we save! Many of them will argue very strongly against anything that is liberal, even if it is a good thing. I am confident that if you asked a question in the politics question asking dems and republicans what affiliation they are of and what their beliefs on global warming are, you would see that this is completely founded. American republicans take the "conservative" way of thinking to the extreme!
 
Several factors, several of which have already been suggested.

I believe that it is ingrained in the american psyche to distrust proclamations from on high. And that is how the argument is often presented in the US. Al Gore is the poster boy for the cause, got an OSCAR, an oscar for pete's sake, for his stupid propoganda film. That alone is enough to make many americans suspicious, both because it came from Al Gore in particular and because of the Hollywood award.

The argument thus long ago left the realm of science and entered the realm of politics.

I could go on, but others have dealt with many other factors.

My final comment is that the science is not in fact as solid as you pretend (or apparently are taken to believe).

Even the science has become politicized - nothing is unrelated anymore. If you want an easy route to publish, you just have to throw in some climate change association into your paper. The sheep have gotten smaller on the isolated island, this is because of climate change. bammo. a journal article and headline news somewhere.
 
Truly, it's cultural irresponsibility - a consequence of the "powers-that-be" (particularly corporate power; military, manufacturing, and energy) upon the American economic, and government systems - ultimately policy-making decisions - and so much more. It's a consequence of Capitalism's (read: neo-liberal, Chicago-school, economic policies) rather irresponsible application of THEIR mal-directed ideals (except for themselves) upon a public with no sense of history, except in the most formulated sense which supports and reinforces the power structure. The country is divided from itself through naive ignorance and will have trouble making any significant changes that benefit it and much of the world that it controls and has significant influence, which is appears to be diminishing, fortunately.

The sum effects of this program of 'dumbing-down of America' are a reduction in regular and reliable information for ordinary citizens with which to make decisions, an educational reduction in critical logic skills which prohibits clear thinking, a poor understanding of the USA's role and relationship to foreign countries which is a consequence of a brutally aggressive empire-building and maintenance policy and has killed millions in the last 50 years (almost unknown in the USA - surprised?), a truly poor understanding of democracy and how it is distorted by too-strong corporate interests, etc. The list is long. Among these consequences (to answer your question) are a wide range of issues including enormous quantities of research that indicate that human-caused CO2 emissions can cause, or will cause, climate change...and are strongly denied and argued against, as you say. This should be expected. For the most part they American argue self-preservation instead of what would, or should, be argument for planetary preservation. Again, they are not able to think beyond their own borders because there is nothing to need to know beyond their borders.
---------
What is needed, immediately, is a economic and cultural revolution in the USA - not just for it's own salvation, but for the rest of the world, too. - - I am not optimistic. Greed, power, and the ever-present selfishness of human nature are never easy to restrain except in times of crisis - and that point hasn't been reached yet, while others can justifiably say that many are working TOWARDS. I think it's all to late, really. Those in power are too powerful to restrain without full rebellion/revolution, and that just isn't going to happen where it's needed most - in the good, 'ol USofA.
----------------
(Some of these thoughts, (definitely not the last) come from Jarred Diamond's books, any of which I recommend highly. Start with Collapse which documents many, many cultures and civilizations around the world whose demise was caused by environmental degradation. There are some really good success stories, as well, so HOPE does remain - but I have my strong doubts with American leadership.)
 
Neither. They have the 3rd largest population in the world and the largest online population. I think you'll find a similar percentage of vocal sceptics in every western nation, it's just the U.S is bigger.
The average citizens in the U.S are also going to be hit hard if this "Cap n Trade" legislation goes ahead so I suspect that is why the U.S sceptics are being particularly vocal at this stage.
And why shouldn't they, this has got to be one of the greatest swindles the modern world has ever witnessed.
 
It's clearly both, although the Energy Lobby is surely a bigger factor. Looking at Yahoo Answers here in my home in Britain it's just surreal seeing the levels blind paranoia coming from US climate change deniers. 99% of them give such ludicrous reasons that it's blatantly obvious that they don't understand the first thing about the science, the history of the issue, or indeed what it actually means! Many claim it's all a plot by their government, never really addressing the fact that MANY governments around the world taking the issue VERY seriously, even some who do not like the US!

One can see from looking at the denier websites, books, documentaries etcs that they are targeted at the population of the US. Thankfully in Britain we're not so bombarded with this misinformation. The Great Global Warming Swindle was shown on British TV once, and due to viewer complaints the TV station apologised and admitted that the documentary was indeed misleading and scientifically inaccurate.

It's just so painful to watch people being fooled by this low level, unscientific, lying propaganda. They furiously fight their cause, telling others that they have been duped, when it's they themselves who have been duped by corporate interests. The saddest part is that all it would take to show them how wrong they are is to read a simple book on climate change from an honest source. However, they are so sure that they have all the 'facts' that they need, that nobody could ever convince them to do this *big sigh*.

___

Edit: Starbuck, did I say I was against ALL corporations? I don't think so. However, you do seem to have a fundamental mistrust of governments. Personally, I just have something against anyone, corporate, government or otherwise who strives for financial gain by spreading lies or exploiting others.

Read David B's links. It's no secret that oil companies such as Exxon have poured a lot of money (which they have plenty of, considering they are some of the richest corporations in the world) into funding climate change denial. It doesn't take a 5 year old to figure out why. They would stand to lose a lot of money if we reduce our energy consumption to combat climate change.

I really despair of you. At least I have read a reasonable amount of climate change denial material. You haven't even read a genuine book on climate change, and consequently you do not even understand what it is. Everything I read from legitimate sources on climate change agrees on the essential points and goes to form a clear and self-consistent picture. Climate change deniers on the other hand, disagree with each other a great deal, and most of them make arguments against a fictional version of climate change that no legitimate source ever claimed to be true in the first place.
 
You are right. It is pretty straight forward answer. Lots of energy consumption = lots of business. Lots of business = lots of corporate interest in maintaining the status quo because it is easier to make short term profits with this focus. Therefore, to maximize corporate profits, it is in the economic self interest of corporations with a short profit horizon to invest in denying global warming exist.

There are plenty of "entrepreneurs" who are trying to find a way to cash in on this easy money - just spread misinformation - this is much easier than doing any scientific research. Make up a false set of credentials and a blog site and make up "facts" to post. It is not against the law to lie on the internet, but it is against the law in research (and unethical).

This will confuse the typical American that doesn't follow the AGW issue or science closely and possibly eliminate or weaken any legislation to remedy the action. The US is where a lot of the CO2 comes from so it is where denialist should invest their money to gain the most benefit from spreading misinformation. As the denialist like to say, follow the money!
 
Or maybe because the US is responsible for 20% of the Global GDP, maintains 11 Super carrier task forces, the largest and most advanced air force, the largest global communications network, the best health care system in the world and the list goes on and on... The biggest kid on the block usually talks the loudest, it's just the way of things.
 
Back
Top