First of all, I’ve always been in favor of reducing emissions of pollution and developing alternative energy sources. We are quite simply going to run out of fossil fuels at some point. In a past career I worked on a program developing electric and hybrid vehicles. (The batteries of which present a pollution problem almost as bad as the emissions, but that’s another story.) That development got killed for political reasons, which was also one of the reasons I decided to just go change careers because it was not my first development rodeo that politics cancelled.
Second, I’ve always been in favor of maintaining our forests. Bears like trees. I spend a lot of money keeping a little forest in my yard. Forests are good for the earth. Endless open space or development is not.
So if the climate change bunch would present this issue in a reasonable way as “we are not doing enough to clean up our earth and save the forests”, I would probably be on board.
Instead it is presented in a hysterical, politicized way (have you guessed that I view politics with a jaundiced eye yet?) along the lines of “we’re going to have devastating hurricanes and floods all over the place” (like the world never had a bad hurricane or flood before, especially when people were shortsighted enough to construct a populated area in a place prone to hurricanes and flooding) “and if you don’t go along with the USA spending huge amounts of money to fix global warming then you must just be some uneducated dim bulb who hates humanity, and you probably believe in all that religious hokum too, and you probably voted for that evil man Trump, yada yada yada”. And I am out the door.
I suspect the intelligent save-the-planet approach wasn’t scaring enough people into bandwagon jumping. Heck, I was even concerned when they were pushing the idea that the ice would all melt and there wouldn’t be enough habitat for polar bears. I like polar bears. I read an article that said apparently they decided that approach was not what they wanted.
I’m also aware from some of my past work that there are regions of this planet that have 19th century pollution still going on and don’t want to spend money to fix it because their economy is still developing and they feel that’s more important. China has got pollution like London back in the days of the poisonous fog. Yet the USA is always the guy with the deep pockets who should spend its money to fix everything.
Finally, we have been studying a relatively short duration in the planet’s history to make climactic pronouncements. I think more study may be needed, if only to make sure we don’t spend a ton of money in the wrong direction of fixing matters.
In short - talk about the issue like an adult scientific discussion and I’m happy to discuss. Talk about it like those who disagree are a bunch of stupid idiots who don’t understand science or don’t care about the earth, and I take my football and go home.