Silly me. I used to think people could be persuaded through facts. That you could provide evidence, and unless the opposite side could refute the evidence, their side would be proved wrong. Now I'm starting to see the world like C.S. Lewis' Wormwood: "At that time the humans still knew pretty well when a thing was proved and when it was not; and if it was proved they really believed it. They still connected thinking with doing and were prepared to alter their way of life as the result of a chain of reasoning. But what with the weekly press and other such weapons we have largely altered that. Your man has been accustomed, ever since he was a boy, to have a dozen incompatible philosophies dancing about together inside his head. He doesn't think of doctrines as primarily "true" of "false", but as "academic" or "practical", "outworn" or "contemporary", "conventional" or "ruthless". Jargon, not argument, is your best ally in keeping him from the Church. Don't waste time trying to make him think that materialism is true! Make him think it is strong, or stark, or courageous—that it is the philosophy of the future. That's the sort of thing he cares about."
There are those who are using "climate change" to obtain power. They can control how people live their lives and accumulate a tidy profit through "carbon credits" and so forth. They can tell everyone what is and what is not allowed (except for themselves, of course!) Our "betters" will still be tooling around in private planes and limos and munching on caviar when we are heating our homes with dung and scavenging for food. Why everyday people can't figure this out when it has actually happened already in Communist countries (that is, the ruling class gets everything while the vaunted "working class" gets nothing) is beyond me but then there's that whole problem with reason and evidence again.
The people who are still clinging, shrieking and kicking, to the idea of "climate change," that I don't understand, are the ones who will receive no benefit from it. These people are willing to bow to their so-called superiors and do everything they say. Why are they willing to greatly reduce their standard of living just because someone tells them they should? That is, why are they willing to listen to one set of people and close their ears to the rational arguments of anyone else?
AGW has been described as a religion, because you need faith to believe in it. I agree with this premise, but I want to take it one step further. It has often been posited that people that natter on about "saving the planet" and "social justice" and so forth want to feel good about themselves. And why do they want, or need, to feel good about themselves? From the Christian point of view, it seems obvious. Nobody in reality can feel good about themselves. We all mess things up; we all make mistakes; worst of all, we will all continue to mess things up. We may conquer one flaw only to have three others rise up. Christians, though, can say, no, we can't feel good about ourselves, but we trust in One who took care of things for us. We are not good, but God is, and Christ has wiped out our sins and our messing things up, with His death and resurrection.
For the non-Christian, though, what is there? Without Christ, you have to do for yourself. You need to believe that you are "making a difference." And if something as simple as changing your light bulb or driving a different car makes you feel self-righteous, hey, it's all good. Little old you can "save the planet." It's probably a very powerful and addictive feeling. Too addictive to let yourself be confused by the facts.
Neo-neocon says it takes a very long time for people to admit that they were wrong. I suppose it can be very hard to realize and accept that you were wrong about something for years. I hope enough people will be willing to look at the facts and not just how good something makes them feel.