I was trying to wrap my head around climate change deniers and I thought this could be fun. I do not want to dig into anything political, but let's give it a shot. Idiots: change my view. Alt focus: What are you convinced of in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary?
Just as a forewarning - this thread will not be for debating topics or as another bastardized spin-off of the serious thread. For anyone that wants to debate anything here, the serious thread is where it will be taken. Just post the opposing viewpoint and thats it. Disclaimer: I dont necessary subscribe to any climate skepticism, but I think I understand it. There are a few issues with the subject of climate change that I think create skeptics despite the data: 1) The sky is always falling. 40 years ago, when it was called global warming more than climate change, the supporters of the data claimed there was only 20 years left before we depleted the world's fossil fuel supply and we were living in a Mad Max-style landscape. Obviously, that didnt happen. 20 years ago they said the same thing when acid rain was all the buzz. Again, the world didnt fall apart in the interim. How could this not create skepticism? 2) The issue is heavily politicized (when it should not be) and ardent environmental activists do damage to their own cause. For instance they'll protest deep water drilling. When land-based pipelines are proposed (which are 10x more environmentally friendly), they protest that too. They will give themselves a big ol' pat on the back, without actually proposing a viable solution. Getting on 100% renewable energy is a wonderful idea, but what does practical implementation look like? What technology exists that replace carbon-based fossil fuels on an industrial scale in public utilities and at the same time is economically viable? Nuclear energy is one solution, but that gets protested too. Due to these issues, both sides take a stance, unfortunately down party lines, and politics takes over. The harder one side pushes, the harder the other side pushes back. 3) The scientific data, while abundant, is also incomplete. Newer technology yields more accurate information, which often contradicts previous conclusions. This is a good thing. But again, if consensus can be disproved, then it calls into question the credibility of future conclusions. This is how scientific research works and is supposed to work. But when you combine with points #1 and #2 above, it will create skepticism.
Another one: I think that my dad is healthier (lifelong smoker, eats relatively healthy, but works on his feet and walks 3-4 miles a day) than I would be at the same age (non-smoker, eats less healthy, and sedentary most of the day). To paraphrase Bill Maher: the processed food is killing us faster and in worse ways than smoking is.