What Is The Climate-Deniers' True Motive?

I read chapter three up to and a little beyond the quoted section.
What's the problem?
it is all plain English and is written at a rather accessible level. While I don't get the math, I understand what it was about.
It was actually pretty simple to comprehend.
need to check the rest of it, looks interesting

 

It's not a problem if you don't understand the issue enough to know for sure-- the problem is when you think that you DO know and start going through a lot of amateurish speculations and flat out lies as if they prove that AGW is a massive hoax.

I've had enough climate-change arguments online to be able to spot the same arguments over and over-- your 'but the ice in Antarctica has grown' point is one of them. The response is that it's seasonal sea ice NOT permanent land ice, has little effect on global temperatures as it only appears in winter, and there are a lot of theories that explain it... but even if there weren't it still has no impact on the overall warming trend, which is increasing.

You don't need to completely understand each and every climate change related paper published in order to get the basics of the issue, and the finer points discussed in these papers pose NO threat to the credibility of the AGW theory. The only thing that they pose a threat to is the public perception of the issue, which is vulnerable to deliberate misquoting, misinterpretation, conspiracy theories, etc... mostly because people who are clueless never know just how clueless they are, and admitting they're wrong is difficult for them especially when they've invested so much in their version of the issue.

 

It doesn't have problems. You think you do. To know just say what you know, not what you don't. Speculation is like expectorating in your eye.

 

I don't know what this means.

 

Money... The oil, gas and coal industries have been invested a lot and make huge profits off their industries.

 

Problems are issues of the mind. Problems don't exist out there. If, then, is referred to as speculation, if it is not accompanied by axiomatic statements then it is like blowing in the wind.
It is called logic if it uses axiomatic progression. /An axiom is a statement that shows itself to be self evident. If, then's, don't work unless we start with a factual premise.

 

Oh okay... that clears that up then.

 

We are so enamored/used to looking at problems within the context of --how much money will something cost--who's going to pay for it (whatever "it" is) and how can "it" possibly be afforded within the present monetary system of capitalism. Even and especially when our very lives MAY--repeat MAY--be at stake. Maybe all is fine--maybe. But those that could make some rational changes cannot see past --HOW MUCH WILL IT COST ME??? And immediately---THAT'S TOO MUCH! Some issues need to looked at and considered beyond money. Life on earth, for instance.

 

I'm not the one making this debate. Simply answering the topic of the thread as to why people make other claims

 

Having finally watched 'Merchants Of Doubt', I'm left with the impression that deniers aren't really so different from the people on this board. Of course the energy companies are protecting their profit margins, but by giving money to the people who will say what they want to hear, they've created an entirely different monster with completely irrational reasons for spreading lies and suppressing science.

More dangerous than the opportunists trying to line their pockets are the die-hard free market capitalists who know that addressing climate change is going to require government regulation, which they equate with socialism/communism, which they equate with evil. Like the deniers on this board (and elsewhere), they don't care about the actual science, and they think they're doing a good thing because all regulation must be opposed or it will spell the end of freedom. This is why it's the libertarians who are funding denialism-- because their hard-line free market stance is in direct conflict with fighting climate change, and the survival of their ideology depends on denying that it exists. The cynicism in the wake of the Great Recession has driven people to consider third party options and has bolstered their momentum-- they can't back down now.

The irony here is that by delaying action, they're setting the stage for full-blown fascism. They've already pretty much guaranteed hardship and conflict throughout the world in another few decades... and there's simply no way that the planet can go through that sort of turmoil without totalitarianism rising up and suppressing the people by force on a mass-scale.