It won't. And by the time we find another inhabitable planet, we are unlikely to have the resources or the ability to get there.

Civilizations collapse very quickly when the bill comes due.

But, in my little world of central Alabama I must admit most who believe it is a "hoax" are religious. They have the general feeling that God gave them this planet to rape and pillage without restrictions.

They are charged with the command to be "good stewards", in fact. Those who reject environmentalism do so at the risk of their soul. (hehe)

http://www.targetearth.org/about/bible_and_environment.html

means God gave them this planet to do with as they wish. By the way those who do understand "good stewards" all believe in climate change also. I should have qualified my reply to say fundamentals not religious, My bad.

by the way I modified my last reply to you for clarification.

...and she is very concerned about the environment. However, that doesn't stop her from voting R. I think you need to look elsewhere for your answer.

To understand the problem, I usually recommend these two academic articles:

Theory:
Rearguard of Modernity

in the journal Global Environmental Politics

Environmental skepticism denies the reality and importance of mainstream global environmental problems. However, its most important challenges are in its civic claims which receive much less attention. These civic claims defend the basis of ethical authority of the dominant social paradigm. The article explains how political values determine what skeptics count as a problem. One such value described is “deep anthropocentrism,” or the attempt to split human society from non-human nature and reject ecology as a legitimate field of ethical concern. This bias frames what skeptics consider legitimate knowledge. The paper then argues that the contemporary conservative countermovement has marshaled environmental skepticism to function as a rearguard for a maladaptive set of core values that resist public efforts to address global environmental sustainability. As such, the paper normatively argues that environmental skepticism is a significant threat to efforts to achieve sustainability faced by human societies in a globalizing world.

Download here: http://ucf.academia.edu/PeterJacques/Papers/71775/Rearguard-of-Modernity



Study to test theory:
The Organization of Denial: Conservative Think Tanks and Environmental Scepticism

Co-authored with Riley E. Dunlap and Mark Freeman published in the journal Environmental Politics, June 2008

Environmental scepticism denies the seriousness of environmental problems, and self-professed 'sceptics' claim to be unbiased analysts combating 'junk science'. This study quantitatively analyses 141 English-language environmentally sceptical books published between 1972 and 2005. We find that over 92 per cent of these books, most published in the US since 1992, are linked to conservative think tanks (CTTs). Further, we analyse CTTs involved with environmental issues and find that 90 per cent of them espouse environmental scepticism. We conclude that scepticism is a tactic of an elite-driven counter-movement designed to combat environmentalism, and that the successful use of this tactic has contributed to the weakening of US commitment to environmental protection.
download here: http://ucf.academia.edu/PeterJacques/Papers

Anytime somebody wants to regulate corporations, the deniers, who are funded by right wing think tanks will point to "uncertainties" in the science.

The have done this with acid rain, tobacco, DDT, and whatever science would lead to government control of business.

Here is an excellent vid that tells the whole story:

I will watch.

Cap and trade and collecting fees for polluting and carbon intensive products and services is the right thing to do to raise money to pay for the changes and improvements we need to make.

Freepers probably think we want to pocket it, but they are right in saying that we will be wanting to raise money behind this, and to the extent that we'll stop subsiding gas guzzlers and force them to buy efficient light bulbs, you could say that we'll be taking away their freedoms, too.

.

They pocket the profit from destroying the planet so they believe we want to pocket profit from saving it.

1. Env warming is a conspiracy put together by those who profit from pushing it - The scientists, Politicians (Al Gore mostly), and people who want to sell equip. They need to push it in order to keep getting money for it. Never mind the opposite argument that it is ONLY denied by those in the pay of the oil (EXXon) and coal companies. They certainly don't make it up because it would hurt their profits...

2. The Commie Socialist Fascists (I know they can't be the same but logic and facts are not the strong suit of who you are talking to) make it up because they don't like the lifestyle of profligate energy people. The idea here is that 'hippies' hate cars, trucks, suburbia, plastic, wasteful living, capitalism especially, etc and have created this hysteria in order to deprive them of their way of life through panic and authoritarian central action. Never mind this is really close to what the problem is, and that they are in fact projecting their issues on others. THEY DON'T WANT TO GIVE UP THESE THINGS, and therefore must INVENT this nonsense to avoid having to change. The essence of living in denial, like anyone with a problem, say like drug addiction.

3. OK, it is real, but it is not caused by people. It is a (pick one) natural thing that happens all the time because of sunspots, earth orbit, earth tilt, changes in the sun, volcanoes etc. The earth was warmer at one time and is just happening again, it is just part of coming out of the ice ages. These folks generally don't understand science nor know history and timescales, so informing the ignorant with facts is seldom helpful. The fact that NONE of these reasons correspond to the period of warming nor can explain it generally is lost on them because they don't know the difference between correlation and cause and effect proof. Showing them a graph with the rise in temp lining up with industrial activity is not true because of #2 and their enablers #1.

4. You can't PROVE it, therefore it can't be true. Again they don't understand the nature of scientific evidence. We will wait until you prove it and all the models have no margin for error.

5. OK it is real, but there is plenty of time to fix it and the market will provide the answer when the time comes. Generally these folks don't understand concepts like thermal mass, inertia, permanent damage (one way change), development response times and the scale required to off set the damage. By the time it is obvious, it will take massive and equally long term efforts to fix it compared to relatively minor efforts now.

6. OK, it is real, but it will be good for the planet. Minnesota will be warm in the winter now. These folks don't get that Kansas may no longer be able to grow corn or other outcomes. Their perspective is limited to their small life circle and cannot comprehend anything outside it nor feel responsible for others in other areas or times. Your basic selfish sociopath.

7. One of my favorites. Bejeesus is coming next year and will a) rapture away the delusional leaving behind the others to suffer with it (eg it is part of dogs plan); b) He made it and can fix it with a wave of the wand if needed. In any case no need to change or address it now.

8. If it is real, how come it is so cold in the winter? Didn't you environmentalists say just a bit ago that we were headed for an ice age? You don't know it so are always making things up (#1). These folks don't get that we are de-stabilizing a system and pumping extra energy into so 'swings' will be wider and it could for instance get warmer on the coasts but colder in land. There are many scenarios.

Those are some 'reasons' that the Deniers trot out, but mostly it is as said in #2. They don't want to admit it is real, because then they would have to act; or worse they would have to change their world view.

I can say they make good sense.

More success might be found in convincing many people who vote republican, who are neither fundies or beyond reason. Many are just like many democrats who are uninformed or can't be distracted from their consumption and busy lives, to think, react and sometimes, vote. It is not only a republican partisan problem, the democrats continue to allow it to be a non issue in the national political discourse. The democrats continue to allow the mass media to distort the importance of the issue and the science that gives foundation.

IMHO, Between those two elements more votes are to be found, and more opinions to be changed than conversion of a fundamentalism that sacrifices logic to egocentric dogmatism.

Just my two cents, and probably not worth as much.

... he cited an absence of science in the speculative markets. He cited three publications with pronounced discussion of perpetual motion machines, without any clue that the physics says they are snake oil.

Forbes, WSJ, and I believe IBD were the publications.

They wanna believe in bullshit because it keeps their legalized gambling afloat.

That's their story and they are sticking to it.

Climate denial is a lie invented to protect corporate profits at any cost.

I guess.