There is so much evidence that supports climate change. Yet, many Republicans/conservative US politicians do not want to acknowledge the facts and believe it is a hoax. Why is that so? Are they all being lobbied?
Because it is a problem created and fueled by the free market that the free market itself can't fix.Because the only solutions to climate change, or pollution in general, require a 'big' government of regulation, oversight and enforcement. Something that conservatives are vehemently against from a philosophical standpoint.It all boils down to diffuse harm vs. acute gain. A company can earn an acute short term gain by avoiding costly safety and cleanliness standards, by refusing to invest in clean technology, and by ignoring public health and the environment, but it comes at a diffuse cost to everyone. That cost isn't born to the extent by any one individual, or even small group of individuals, as to warrant the business stop it's practices. This is often true even in the face of some weak goverent regulation and/or litigation (see BP oil spill). The harm is greater in total than the benefit earned by the company, but since the harm is spread out so thinly, it often takes generations before it accumulates and affects people enough to take action. Meanwhile the business is reaping acute gains.Because there is no 'libertarian' economic solution to this problem, and the only solution is government regulation, and, even more frightening and loathsome for conservatives, government regulation on a global level, cognitive dissonance then demands that these dogmatically libertarian conservatives deny that the problem even exist in the first place. If they didn't, they would have to acknowledge that the fundamental philosophy that defines their politics is fatally flawed. Hence why many libertarians, Republicans and conservatives deny the science behind anthropogenic climate change.
Why do some people deny climate change? Why don't they at least admit it and say it isn't because of humans?
They usually deny it because they simply don’t understand it. One of the common reasons for this is an inability to distinguish between weather and climate. They may think today is cold for example and therefore believe global warming cannot be possible. Some people simply place a great deal of faith in their experiences and their own interpretation. This is partly due to an effect called the Dunning-Kruger effect, which states that people with a low level of knowledge of a subject tend to vastly over-estimate their level of understanding.Some people also have religious reasons for denying climate change, claiming that everything is god’s plan or that mankind is too small to change something as big as global climate. For the Stewardship of Creation This is a good example. The embarrassingly named Cornwall Alliance (I’m from Cornwall and I can confirm they have no affiliation with the place at all!) who deny climate change simply on the basis that their god in the sky tells them its not real.There are also the others who deny climate change for profit, these are the most sinister of all. If you want some examples of these, US politics is a good place to look! Many US politicians who vocally deny climate change are funded by Koch brothers. Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine - Greenpeace USASo I think they can be grouped into 4 main groupsThe arrogant deniers. Those who wrongly believe they understand something they have no expertise ofThe misinformed deniers. People who have heard false information or simply don’t understand it well enough and have seen skeptic arguments that seem credible (None of them are credible if investigated enough).The religious deniers.The paid deniers.I am yet to encounter any climate deniers who don’t fall into one of these categories.
Why do liberals hate the Koch Brothers so much? Is it because they are entrepreneurial and capitalists?
same reason cons hate soros... major money donors to the bad guys on the other side... they also use their influence to help the other side do things you don't like... politically motivated rich people with the means to make a difference... is it really that hard to understand?
Do the Koch Brothers fund climate science denial at the Heartland Institute?
No. The Koch brother donate to the Heartland institute. The Heartland Institute as well as most of the other organizations that the Koch Brothers donate to, work on MANY issues. Clearly, the Koch Brothers have a more conservative or libertarian view on politics, but that is far from a crime. These people making these wild allegations are simply attempting to use false allegations in place of data. Basically, the warmers engage in these attacks, because it is nice to have a person to focus your blame upon. Heaven forbid they look at themselves and the constant attack of nuclear power as a source of energy accomplished by liberal groups. Heaven forbid they try to use capitalism to try to affect change. If all of the warmers cared so much about the type of power being generated, then they could speak with their pocketbook and use the "cleaner" forms of energy more often. Anyone who rails against AGW and does not have solar panels on their house, should probably look at the mirror. Ohhhh, it costs a lot of money??? You don't say. And BTW, all of the donors to liberal groups... Do you also hound and vilify them??? That would be known as hypocrisy to normal people. Edit: Need some help?? https://www.heartland.org/ Note that they cover a myriad of topics. I may disagree with them as often as I agree with them, but my disagreement does not make the Heartland institute into some evil organization. This is a republic, ladies and gentlemen. We are allowed to have differing views.
Why dont the general public believe in climate change?
I got to give Moe and CO2 expeller kudos on there answers. They nailed them. I couldn't add much to their answers!! I would say that I am a scientist whose job isn't about studying global warming. I am a geologist and as such I have knowledge of natural climate change far in excess of anything that humans might cause. It is the norm in the last couple million years. I frankly am suspicious of those who study climate whose jobs depend on it, whose funds depend on their shrill claims. The funding actually weeds out the skeptical voices. If you actually take the time to read the emails from climate gate(s), it reveals a cabal of scientists who collude on how to restrict skepticism, use outdated data series, etc etc. You think these people are so smart. They used trees that were injured or damaged called strip bark trees. These trees compensated for the damage by increased growth on the other side. The bozo who did the search looked for these kinds of trees because he thought it would be better representative of the climate and reduce CO2 fertilization (one of their theories). The incompetence of some of these people is breathtaking but after discovering that the series were useless and bogus, they still used them. Mann's 1998 climate reconstruction depended on this sort of thing, as well as questionable centring of data which selected for hockey sticks. His future reconstructions (I think inventions would be closer to the truth) were little better. It was all about getting rid of the medieval warming period and Little Ice Age. Those climate scientists who were incompetent or dishonest enough to come up with a way to rid the record of those inconvenient data was rewarded with funding, power, and fame. You can trust them if you want. I will trust in the science I learned as well as my common sense.