[mikeash]

My experience is that "conservatives" will pick whatever argument they can get away with when it comes to climate change. Depending on the context the same person might argue:

1. Climate change is a hoax.

2. Climate change is real, but natural.

3. Climate change is real, caused by humans, but beneficial.

4. Climate change is real, caused by humans, harmful, but attempts to fight it don't help.

5. Climate change is real, caused by humans, harmful, can be fought successfully, but the cost isn't worth it.

I too would like to see more productive discussion, but it's hard when every discussion on the subject is flooded with people arguing in opposition to the facts.

[euyyn]

It boils down to not wanting to spend their money, and arguing whatever it takes for that not to happen. In Spanish you'd say "les duele el bolsillo".

[noobiemcfoob]

Replace "conservatives" with "people" and delete everything after "with"

If you're discussing a topic with someone who relies on illogical crutches and isn't interested in discussing the topic... why are you even talking?

[mikeash]

"why are you even talking?"

Some combination of: they're related to me, they vote, they barge into conversations and start arguing against the facts.

[noobiemcfoob]

But what you're complaining about isn't an issue with conservatives; it's an issue with asshats. And if your goal is to convince an asshat of something, you don't talk to the asshat. You talk to (and convince) the person the asshat respects.

If someone barges into an discussion like that and you attempt to confront them with reason and argumentation, you're gonna have a bad time only further poisoning your perspective of the "other side".

[mikeash]

It's an issue with climate change deniers specifically, which has nearly total overlap with the set of conservatives.

And sure, this sort of thing is not unique to climate change denial. What is unique is the consequences that denial is having to the planet (and therefore me), and their presence in forums that are otherwise at least vaguely aligned with facts.

[noobiemcfoob]

How is their denial affecting you? Has it led to tangible changes in your life? Maybe you'd argue that it has led to a lack of tangible changes, but I don't think you can stand on that. Environmentally conscious efforts have continued to grow year after year despite a lack of political consensus, ultimately leading to solar now being cheaper than coal. That isn't due to regulation. It's because people who care have found ways to make a living doing the thing they care about and making it more viable.

tl;dr: People may deny the problem, but when the solution isn't political in the first place, I can't see why it matters.

[mikeash]

The problem is being made much worse than it would be if our government accepted the science.

Yes, renewables are getting quite cheap, and coal is dying one way or another. But the amount of coal that gets pumped into the atmosphere before we're done with it will be far higher than it needed to be.

If you think the solution isn't political, then obviously you'll disagree with me, but you're unlikely to convince me that government intervention doesn't matter here.