Absolutely correct!! You can't call 'Climate Change' a controversy now that we all are facing the consequences already!!
I know that for most topics i make uninformed decisions based on the information created/curated by intelligent people. Eg, global warming, vaccinations, etcetc. Sure, some of it may seem obvious, but lets be honest - i have no clue about what a vaccination does in the body, nor how climate change works. They're not school-yard topics, i'm a moron when it comes to them.
So, i play the numbers and base my understanding on a large consensus of educated people. As with the case of climate change. My coworker believes roughly the same, but unfortunately he chooses to believe "scientists who revoke climate change". He has some weird things to say, but ultimately he is doing the same thing as me.
The only thing that bothers me on this subject, is we both believe in green energy, reducing pollution, and etcetc. We have basically the same opinions on what we should be doing for the environment (reducing pollution/etc) and how important it is. Yet, he still believes it is a hoax. That part i don't understand.
Why would climate change be a hoax? Who is making money off of a "climate change hoax"? I don't get that part.. hell, part of the problem with green energy was that it didn't exist because no one was making money off it.
Anyway, /rant. All i mean to say is that people on other sides of the fence likely aren't all that different than you.. well, unless you're a researcher in the field of climate change, of course.
- World may be warming but I don't believe we should act yet
- World may be warming but I don't believe the actions we are taking make a difference
- World is warming but I don't believe we know whether the result will be necessary a "bad thing"
- World is warming but I don't believe we know the main cause
- World is warming but I don't care what happens in 100 years
- World is warming but I feel we should wait longer to see if models are correct before spending money on it
- I feel humans overestimate their ability to model the future
- I feel there are bigger problems we should be tackling..
The opportunity costs towards an individual to willingly shift and adapt to climate change is fairly high -- until Pigovian taxes or some such are implemented the adoption rate will be small for prevention. We're likely in the stage now where policies around adaption need to be crafted and planned.
Government subsidies and mandates can help that. If global warming is a problem and we circumvent the market to funnel money to green energy, a hoax could also circumvent the market to funnel money to green energy.
This is one thing I really don't understand as well. Ok, there's X amount of proof in favor of AGW. Where's the evidence for your claims it's all an elaborate, international hoax? Where's the money?
I've never gotten a good answer. Usually just deflections to how "the Earth always fluctuates" and other dismissive claims that have already been answered a thousand times had they bothered to actually research it.
It's witnessing confirmation bias.
Again, I don't think that's what's going on, but I know a lot of people who question or dismiss the median conclusions in other scientific disciplines, like economics, because of some perception of systemic bias.
Myself, I might discount health studies, but maybe I'm biased by the ones that the media chooses to report, which seem to be mostly contradictory nonsense about how chocolate and wine will make you live forever.
This is just a conjecture. If I'm right, I'm not sure if that's supposed to make you feel better (because your opponents are more rational than you thought) or worse (because complex epistemology is not likely a topic you can discuss with 60% of people).
The entire "Cap and Trade" market?