Why do GW deniers deny?

[jambo101]

When overwhelming scientific consensus says otherwise to their position on the issue.
They literally become psychotic in their obsession to deny what the scientific community is saying, coming out with the most delusional and lame rhetoric to support their claim GW isnt happening.
As i havent really been into this story i feel like i'm missing a major piece of the puzzle.
If the majority of the global scientific community tells me the Earth is warming up due to mans activities who am i to refute their conclusions

[djean111]

1. I think they are denying, for the most part, whether they know it or not, that global warming is

man-made. The people who contribute to man-made warming and pollution pay big bucks to spread that belief because they are making even bigger bucks polluting the air and the earth.
I would bet that the average person who denies global warming has been carefully fed that, because if there is no global warming, then no need to regulate the polluters.

[TexasProgresive]

2. I deny George Bush was ever president- Oh Wait!!

You mean Global warming.

The one argument they are fond of is that it is just impossible for humanity to make changes that affect the whole globe. I think they want to believe that because it lets them off the hook for any personal responsibility.

[DetlefK]

3. They regard all intellectual stuff just as a means to denigrate normal people like them.

All the scientists say their smart-ass stuff just to assert their authority. It's not really true. Scientists say those things, because they have a sinister agenda.

For example:
* Scientists say X to get those fat funds for their projects. (All those fat-cat scientists out there with their mansions and private jets...)
* Smart people are automatically elitists. (Obama studied constitutional law and is a stiff person? He's distant and aloof!)
* Scientists contradict my claims, that means they are in cahoots with my enemies. (Chem-trails are bunk? That's what the lizard-people want us to think!)



The concept that a willing driving force, a "creator", has to be behind everything is deeply ingrained into them. The thought that some things just innocently "are", without a guiding spirit or a spin-meister behind the curtains, is alien to them. I think, that's why they also have a problem understanding atheism.

[WeAreKochs]

4. Follow the Money

"Follow the Money"

The anti-climate change movement is heavily funded by the large polluters. Greenpeace is hardly objective, themselves, but they have done some great work to aggregate some of the work done to identify where the money comes from.

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/

The game is simple:

1) Fund "studies" by seemingly objective think-tanks and academics to support your predetermined conclusions

2) Promote the "conclusions" of those studies in sympathetic media outlets and cite them without revealing the conflicts of interest

3) Lobby government with the output of said studies to support sympathetic partisan talking points

4) Repeat ad-nauseum

It's genius, really, in an evil sort of way.

[raouldukelives]

5. The overwhelming scientific consensus of Wall St investors.

If you give them enough money, or promise them enough, some people will support anything, even at the detriment of any family they have, any faith they may ascribe too or any hope that they would ever leave the world a better place because of them.