Another casualty from the Faustian bargain the majority has accepted. Voters have no excuse for not being aware of where candidates stand on global warming. If GW was a prime mover in voting outcomes, we’d have a much different set of politicians.
Here are a few categories they fall into:
The Uncle Milty free market warriors. Governments shouldn’t meddle in the affairs of free people. If you believe GW is caused by fossil fuel use, stop using it. But don’t intrude on my choice, especially with the ‘science’ you trust being so uncertain. The sickest part of this argument is that some actually believe it. You can understand management at oil companies or their big investors shilling this con. It’s the average citizen standing on their ‘don’t tread on me, damn the consequences’ soapbox who are really scary.
The second category contains, imo, the majority. They believe - probably - that accelerated burning of stored energy produced over eons causes or contributes to GW. They haven’t experienced enough deleterious effects in their daily lives to alter behavior or have government do it for them. They’ve been brainwashed to believe, that, in doing so, their standard of living will take a hit. Unlike the group listed above, whose hair would have to catch on fire when going outside before believing, this group is open to persuasion.
The last and smallest group sees GW as an imminent threat to human existence. Included in this group is over 95% of climate scientists. Whether it’s 50 years or 500, the time is infinitesimal on a geologic, even human scale. Their information campaign is no match for the denialists in both dollars and political power.
One of Fox News’ favorite tactics is to take of grain of truth in their argument, acquire trust in the viewer, and then bake the rest into loaf of steaming bullshit. So too for the deniers. C. Hitchens proved that one could find fault in even the most seemingly inviolate when he wrote a disparaging piece on MOTHER THERESA (check it out. He’s got facts to back claims of some hideous behavior). The point is that deniers pose legit questions. But when backdropped against all the accumulated data over thousands of years (ice cores), these doubts pale.
A favorite question asked by those over at Heartland Institute and other business/libertarian sites is, “Are you willing to gamble a trillion dollar economy on projections and guesses?” Of course they never mention all the new technology and job producers a green economy would yield. For the purists, that protects their FREEDOM!! from gubmint interference while keeping the oil folks filthy rich. A moral argument re the rights of future generations never enters the equation.
Another tactic is to inundate the casual observer with an avalanche of arcane stats, graphs and ‘scholarship’ which they know most won’t have the time or expertise to digest, much less refute. Like lawyers, they don’t have to win the argument. Just muck it up enough to sow doubt, and prevent government action. These think tanks are supported by an inexhaustible supply of money from wealth and corporations. The imbalance of income (power) distorts and twists private - as well as public - discourse.