Relative to what things looked like 10-20 years ago, is there still a meaningful contingent of climate change deniers? As far as I can tell, most of those people have accepted the reality but disagree on how we should approach it. Even in the most extreme case--looking at Republicans in the US Congress, steeped in fossil propaganda and owing many of their elections to gerrymandering--and using a broad definition of climate change denialism, deniers are (very slightly) in the minority
At this point we have to consider people who deny that climate change is caused by humans to be climate deniers, since they are advocating for no change in behavior which is the same as people who outright deny that it's happening.
I've heard these arguments: (a) that we don't have the evidence to confirm that climate change is anthropogenic, and (b) that we shouldn't change our behavior. My understanding is (b) is not tied to (a), but rather that most claims of (b) come out of different views on conservation, what "nature" is, what's achievable with technology, and how different approaches to climate change might impact human quality of life.
And (b) is not really that we _shouldn't_ change our behavior, but that the most popular ideas for how we should are varying degrees of infeasible, harmful, or fascistic.
The "right" on this issue is largely misunderstood. Those pushing for a shift to renewables and a lifestyle change in wealthier nations deserve better literature on what their opposition is advocating for and against: https://compactmag.com/article/energy-lysenkoism
What behavior change should people advocate for to not be considered climate deniers? It’s starting to sound more like a temperance movement than a serious attempt to solve a problem.
Yeah, it's like a religion at this point. There are many meaningful debates to be had but people just react very emotionally and dogmatically.
What is the degree of human causation?
How much can be imputed to solar cycles at any given moment of time?
What % of CO2 is produced by humanity?
Is there a possibility of actual catastrophe?
Should pollution reduction and cleanup be prioritized over carbon capture/reduction?
I personally don't believe CO2 is a driver of climate change. I think the 'science' is junk. I do think pollution is a the number one issue facing humanity, and we're doing nothing about it, because all of our collective energy is being directed at a red herring.
Entire ecosystems are being destroyed by chemical and mining industries, not just ones used for batteries. We've polluted every water source on the planet. Just look at the chemicals they're spraying on crops. We're completely over fishing the oceans. We're paving the best farm land in the world to put up shopping malls.
Climate change, even if it's being caused by people, is so far down the list of concerns I couldn't are less about it.
> I personally don't believe CO2 is a driver of climate change.
You can't just say that and not give a reason (unless "the science is junk" was the reasoning needed for any level-headed person to arrive at the same conclusion as you), at least not if you want to be taken seriously. Bit like saying that the sky being blue is just an optical illusion and it's really purple because the science on why it's blue being bogus and the real-world observations being just a coincidence.
It's so far out there and so casually said that I'm again not sure if this thread is just full of flame bait or legitimate opinions. Do people that believe there is no major conspiracy just not open these threads anymore in comparable numbers to those who believe in a conspiracy? Or do you actually believe the opposite of what you wrote but it's way funnier to cause this waste or time going back and forth over it?
They can, because the purpose of the statement is to answer a question I asked about what people believe. There are other drivers of climate change, other seriously impactful greenhouse gases even. In light of their acknowledgment that pollution is humanity's biggest problem, and without more of an understanding of their specific beliefs, it's completely disingenous to compare what they're saying to "the sky is really purple".
On the science-being-junk point, the science on climate change is highly correlative and I don't blame someone for wanting to hold that science to a higher standard. (I understand the arguments why it's ok that the science is less classically scientific, I'm not trying to stake a position here, I don't care, please don't start a flame war with me)
And the rest of their comment is totally reasonable. Ecological collapse __is__ a much more complex and unambiguously serious problem which, depending on your view, is either a bigger risk than climate change or a superset of it. At least with climate change we have silver linings like a possible increase in arable land just as we're hit with a species-threatening rolling food crisis.
Maybe you never heard that Bill Gates is going to have “climate lockdowns” after covid, or “control the food supply.” But among half the voting population this is a common belief.
The most extreme voices are always amplified. In one corner we have people raising alarms over hypothetical ecofascism (misdirecting awareness of the real threat of increasing and increasingly-corporatized authoritarianism); in another we have people pushing for carbon capture methods that could create the next global public health crisis (https://www.vesta.earth/approach -> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8609536/ ); in another we have people who want to build reservoirs with nukes; in another we have people like me who want to see NAWAPA happen despite all the ecological risks and expected archeological + cultural losses. There are plenty of circles like this and none of them are even a plurality
