Take Paul Beckwith for example. He has done a superb job of bringing to our attention that the reality of climate change is much much worse than that reported by the IPCC and others.
At the same time he thinks we can stop further climate change if we only decided to spend enough money including, among other things, replacing fossil with renewable energy, and imposing a carbon tax. All of which won’t help and will in fact make things worse.
How can we explain this dichotomy?
My theory is that without denial he would be too depressed to continue to research and report on the reality of the crisis.
Much like Tim Garrett now seems to think that fracking will save us for a long time.