Global warming is muddied because fossil fuel industries make money on climate change denial, and because cosnervatives realize addressing climate change is something the left wants so they oppose it to trigger the liberals.
Unless both of those things happen, I don’t think it would be the same. I mean conservatives aren’t opposed to finding a cure for alzheimers or heart disease. To my knowledge they don’t get angry when people discuss topsoil erosion.
I feel that most religious fanatics are more accepting of Divine Will when it’s killing other people.
As long as it doesn’t involve stem cells.
You are all doomed.
Send me your money.
You won’t need it soon.
Well…keep in mind that “deniers” after 1973 would have been correct.
Who is the “we” putting money in? Would it be government or private industry or both? And if so, which ones and how much? It’s the same problem with “climate change”. Deciding to spend money on stuff we need now or spend it on something that might happen at some point in the future.
Mmmmmmm, Hot Fudge Tuesdae!
Yours is a more succinct version of my points:
astrological object hit was once predicted, then the prediction was stated to be incorrect, and in a hypothetical case of it once again being predicted, OP pre-labels skeptics of the second flip-flop ‘deniers’. 
contrary to OP’s theme and innumerable responses on the topic generally, climate change is a big onion of an issue. At some layers there are people saying it’s a ‘hoax’, probably in some cases just to troll people who take it seriously. But if all that went away it’s still an extremely difficult issue because it’s really not ‘plutocrats’ or ‘the fossil fuel industry’ preventing a ‘solution’. What’s mainly in the way is billions of people who’d have to accept lower standards of living, or forego a big rise in the standard of living (esp. China, India, etc). Ordinary people just don’t want to do that. And it would seem with foreseeable tech they’d have to do that. Therefore drastic cuts in global GHG emissions just aren’t gonna happen, soon. And a lot of people who carry on bashing climate deniers are in denial about that, IMO.
Subject to tech breakthroughs we don’t know about, which would make inventors very wealthy, so again ideas the ‘fossil fuel industry’ is undermining this is childish conspiracy theorizing. The problem is whether the necessary breakthroughs are really out there, an in time to avoid significant or major effects but those again are highly uncertain, and might be much less net negative in temperate than tropical zones. Altogether very different from a discrete cooperative world project to change the path of a 16 mi diameter object with 100 year head start.
Right. It reminds me of a report the Democrats had about a year ago describing recommendations for a Green economy or some such. Republicans mostly laughed it off as ridiculous because of suggestions like doing away with air travel or cattle farms. And both sides were probably right. What is the point of “saving the environment” if it means rolling back civilizations to pre-industrial levels?
Obviously the claims about banning air travel and cattle farms is in no way mentioned in the documents. That’s pure propaganda.
Ditto there is nothing in there about rolling back civilization in any form, let alone to pre-industrial levels. It’s completely rational to work towards a fossil-fuel less higher tech future.
To claim a side that makes such absurd statements is also “probably right” is incomprehensible.
I think even a large but non extinction one would get a lot of support. No guarantee it doesn’t land on your house.
It wouldn’t be that hard to stop. Just float a large rock up there and over 100 years, its gravitational pull would alter the trajectory enough to divert it. Bigger comets with less warning would be a problem, but 100 years and a dozen miles wide? Easy.
The 8-Ball says, “Reply hazy. Ask again later. Much later.”
Fine. Consider it hyperbole then. But the point is still the same. While it is rational to work towards a future of purely renewable energy, how does one manage the transition? Simply banning fossil fuels at this time (the most extreme option) is impractical because it would destroy the economy. Allowing the free market to guide is towards such a future may take too long to prevent environmental calamity. So once again you get into the same risk/reward calculations of investment in new tech to prevent vs mitigating damage.