I am sharing a flat with a guy (tomorrow I move out to pet-sit for three weeks) who is under the impression that climate change isn’t caused principally by humans; that we don’t need to worry about increased concentrations of CO2 as according to a book he read, the temperature increases at a decreasing rate with increasing CO2 emissions (that may be true, but there is a lot of uncertainty around tipping points and other factors–i.e. the relationship between greenhouse gases and temperature is non-linear); and that we don’t need to worry about extracting non-renewable resources as he thinks that all resources can be recycled or reused (this is true to an extent, but isn’t very feasible, practical or sustainable today).
I also heard from Gordon Fraser at a community energy meeting I went to yesterday about climate skeptics at an OEH meeting in Windsor trying to troll the meeting. They weren’t openly skeptical about climate change, but raised other objections like worker’s ethics in China, solar being uneconomical (which is simply untrue). Gordon had to keep bringing the discussion back to a more constructive nature, and in the three of them stormed out when committees started to form.
Sure there are a lot of uncertainties surrounding climate science, but a lot of that uncertainty has been quantified with confidence intervals and other statistical tools. What there is a 97% consensus amongst climate scientists is that climate change is occurring, humans are causing it (without anthropegenic or human-induced forces IIRC the Earth would currently be slowly cooling into an ice-age over a period of about 100,000 years, followed by warming over 10,000 years, and so on), and that there will be a lot of suffering if we don’t do enough to reverse climate change back to a safe climate zone of about 350 ppm. The more we reverse climate change back to a safe climate zone, the less suffering there will be.