(
citizenzen): "
The only other force that comes close to religious faith is political affiliation. But even then, it's unclear to me why those on "the right" would see it as an opportunity to deny somethings existence as opposed to fighting over the best solution. There's plenty of room for debate in that realm."
He’s primarily politically motivated.
While it frequently intersects with religious issues like the denial of evolution, the denial of climate change typically comes more from the libertarian contingent of the far right. It arises from the dogma that market failures either can’t exist or can’t be create problems.
Climate change creates something of a cognitive dissidence for people who believe markets are infallible because it’s a tangible example of a market failure that has huge consequence and requires government action to deal with.
Rather than modify their position on the infallibility of markets it becomes easier to deny the science that is challenging their belief. It’s not really all that different than denial of evolution based on religious belief especially if you interpret the faith in market infallibility as a form of religious belief.
JREF moderators have now tolerated pages of speculation about the motivations of AGW skeptics by the AGW faithful. When I answered a question about why people with relevant expertise accepted the AGW faith, moderators move my speculation (I'm not a mind reader) to Abandon All Hope. Since they have allowed speculation by the AGW faithful about the motives of skeptics, I will allow myself here to address the comments of Citizenzen and Lomiller.
a) Use of the terms "left" and "right" to describe political positions indicates a one-dimensional view of the multi-dimensional political continuum to which I do not subscribe.
b) AGW skeptics do not deny "climate change". The opposite is the case. Skeptics do not see that any new factor (i.e., anthropogenic CO
2) is needed to explain the recent (late twentieth century) temperature increase, given variability inferred from historical accounts (Roman warm period, medieval warm period, little ice age) and geological reconstructions (Russ, Mindel, Wurm glaciations, etc.).
c) If astronomers were to locate an Earth-crossing asteroid and to predict a reasonable probability of an impact with Earth, I expect that many AGW skeptics would have no problem with a crash government-funded response. The difference does not depend on views of the place of markets versus government but on differences between the assessment of the science behind "climate science" and the science behind astronomical predictions.
d)Consider the discussion (for example) between
my comment here... and
here and
here and
here and
here: "unhealthily invested in their own image ... so prominent in the denier world shows how poverty-stricken they've always been for content and talent." and
here: "...pseudoscience content..." and
here: "...clear the taste out your mouth after discussing Dear Anthony...what blight his blog is...." and
here: " ... denialist rants ... everything they say is straight from the memes that fly around the denialist blogs. There is not an original thought provided, apart from the odd piece of 'common sense'." and
here: "What's the saying, ah yes; 'I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.'
Problem is, too large a segment of the population just gets a kick out of watching pig wrasslin!" and
here: "The problem is, these pigs are in charge of our country and making policy." and
here: "and an oily pig is indeed a slippery character."
and here...
(
Malcolm): "There's little point to a discussion of differences unless we get agreement on basic terms. That's where the discussion begins. I suggest also that relentless ad hominem degrades the prospect for progress in the argument."
The AGW faithful demonstrate how to construct and maintain a climate consensus: by ad hominem against skeptics and assembling a supportive horde of brainless invertebrates.
"Pig" yourself.
!
.
! 
