It's easy to see why so many apparently deny the science, EXXON, Kosh Brothers, etc, spent untold millions on subversive propaganda campaigns - and only had to sell an idea that people already wanted to buy - that we don't have to change our lifestyles or reduce our impact on the physical world, we don't need to feel guilty because our actions don't really have consequences.

Even if we do collectively accept this, few are going to elect politicians whose manifesto is banning gas guzzling automobiles, or rationing red meat, etc and corporations are only motivated by short-term profit. I don't eat meat, it's the least I can do, but most people I meet won't change because 'it's tasty'.

In the States, the science of climate change became politicized, and like everything else, polarized. This has been disastrous really, with any concern for the planet being reduced to 'lefty crap' and anti-business.

Lastly, our media is owned and tightly ran by a small minority whose interests are very much in continuing the status quo, apparently at really any cost - plain old hubris or something more sinister?

To answer the OP, I think with climate change, resource wars and the serious knock on effects that will all have, ending RTW moto travel will be the least of our problems. Just the other day I read that globally we've got sixty years of arable top soil left. Sixty years! But as usual Al Qaeda 2.0 were dominating the hysterical media.

Have you ever worked with Scientists? They are fallible and subject to their own biased and bigotry which is unfortunately human nature.

Correct, on both sides of the Fence.
Most who tell me to read "Science" probably only listen to a blurb now and then on CNN or other nonsense type of programming and do not follow their own advice. It is merely a way of putting others down without having to back up their own statements.



Meat is how our brains were able to grow, why on earth would anyone quit eating it? Indeed we should research our consumption overall, and we should push for higher quality meat standards, that by no means is an excuse to go backwards in evolution.


BTW, how many of "Inconvenient truths" benchmarks have been made?

Yes I have thanks, often an interesting bunch but at least their work is based on fact and scientific process, unlike politicians and their own bias and bigotry rarely effects the work they do.

But have you actually read the science to confirm if its merely a way of putting others down without backing up their own statements or whether the science is correct?

lol ok.




But have you actually read the science to confirm if its merely a way of putting others down without backing up their own statements or whether the science is correct?[/QUOTE]

Again, I come from the other side, research taught me otherwise

Not just in the States.
These factors are common across much of the so called developed world.


If there is a general agreement in here by now (there will be some deniers of this!!!) that the global warming concept is not the wolf nearest the sledge of homo sapiens then it might be useful to try to identify what is that wolf.
For instance, the parlous state of the international methods of financial investment and fiscal control of individual nations is considered by some to be on the point of meltdown; even the chinese have belatedly woken up to the reality of their current condition.
This money system could implode well inside a 60 year timeline; some would argue that it is imploding now as an ongoing consequence of earlier financial crisis.

__________________
Dave