I don’t understand climate change deniers. I don’t understand their priorities. I don’t understand how they view their families and others who they claim to love. I don’t understand their lack of imagination when it comes to work in business – how protecting the environment is not only a good thing but can be extremely profitable. I don’t understand that in a situation with such dire possibilities that they feel they can afford to guess.
I naively thought that after they checked their computer in their air conditioned and rode down the elevator to the garage that contained their car in a securely gated area opened by a chip in their car, getting into that car and making a phone call after they say a secure word to make a phone connection and then after the call driving off, following a route planned by their phone or car gps with an arrival time plotted for them, they would realize how dependent they are in technological advancement, all which is impossible without several branches of science.
Conservative they may be, or not. But I thought the climate change deniers, using advances in science hundred, if not thousands of times in a day would have a respect for scientists. Usually there is a contrarian view (or three or four) within the scientific community so that choosing a side possibly can be labeled an opinion. But not when it comes to what is happening to and on our planet. Science, all branches of science is uniform dealing with this subject and that is that we are irreparably damaging our planet and that our present use of the planet’s resources will adversely or permanently end the human life form on earth. We should prioritize and working toward protecting the planet should be the goal.
Some are making the effort. Fighting the good fight. But the inability to get past our petty differences will kill us.
What’s in it for climate change deniers? In their day to days they use the advantages of science but ignore this one crucial thing, that they rely on science all day long. And in climate change there are no do overs.
“In a year of record-setting heat on a blistered globe, with fast-warming oceans, fast-melting ice caps, and fast-rising sea levels, ratification of the December 2015 Paris climate summit agreement—already endorsed by most nations—should be a complete no-brainer. That it isn’t tells you a great deal about our world. Global geopolitics and the possible rightward lurch of many countries (including a potential deal-breaking election in the United States that could put a climate denier in the White House) spell bad news for the fate of the Earth. It’s worth exploring how this might come to be.”
“That geopolitics will play a decisive role in determining the success or failure of the Paris Agreement has become self-evident.”
“The delegates to that 2015 climate summit were in general accord about the science of climate change and the need to cap global warming at 1.5 to 2 degrees Celsius (or 2.6 to 3.5 degrees Fahrenheit) before a planetary catastrophe ensues. They disagreed, however, about much else. Some key countries were in outright conflict with other states (Russia with Ukraine, for example) or deeply hostile to each other (as with India and Pakistan or the United States and Iran). In recognition of such tensions and schisms, the assembled countries crafted a final document that replaced legally binding commitments with the obligation of each signatory state to adopt its own unique plan, or “nationally determined contribution,” for curbing climate-altering greenhouse gas emissions. http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/09/donald-trump-brexit-paris-accord-climate-change