Having thoroughly studied science on AGW, I think I am now more interested in social and psychological aspect of why there are so many skeptics and deniers. (At least this seems to be a fresh and relevant topic as opposed to trying to explain laws of thermodynamics several times a week).
Clearly, the depictions of future effects of AGW are totally counter intuitive to our nature and experience. At this point in time, effects of AGW are too weak to be felt by individuals. Hence the wide-spread skepticism.
I have attempted to classify skeptics and deniers into groups and here they are:
1) The majority that follows the principle that there is no point worrying about something that an individual cannot control. AGW appears a distant, and non-immediate threat and most of us have other more pressing issues to worry about.
2) The stirrer group - I suspect just having good fun at throwing arguments fresh from the Internet into this never ending debate, with no real skeptic conviction. As per natural human contrarian instinct. Nothing wrong with that.
3) A group which has a direct material interest in discrediting the AGW science. This may range from an extreme of being paid for actively and publicly preaching skeptical views and discrediting science, to something rather more trivial like owning oil and coal shares and being concerned about the effects of CO2 reductions on these industries.
4) Another very interesting group, possibly a part of (3). Whilst not completely without common sense, and probably having some technical knowledge, they appear to sincerely disbelieve and ignore a massive amount of evidence available to them through climate science, going instead for (equally abundant on the Net) recycled, discredited endlessly repeated arguments that stand no scientific merit. Dig a bit deeper and the arguments fall apart. Interestingly, even if these "educated" skeptics allowed a 1% chance that AGW was a reality, it would make sense for them to strongly support a very decisive global action on combating CO2 emissions - due to immeasurable, catastrophic effects of inaction. But they don't support this insurance policy.
5) And finally, there appears to be a group of deniers, which simply made up their mind that if the governments, NASA and UN have gotten involved, it has to be a global conspiracy to grab their hard earned dollars (???) under the "fight against AGW" premise. I find this view most amazing and would hate to think what other myths and aberrations form their outlooks on life. Perhaps a mild form of delusion may be suggested - and I mean this in a literal medical sense.
My position is that I believe that TECHNICALLY we perhaps have a 50% chance to stop positive feedback amplified runaway AGW. This would require an incredibly strong coordinated action from around the globe, much stronger than emissions trading, carbon tax, etc as it would require to reduce CO2 concentration to 350 ppm or lower. This is NOT going to happen due to our social organization and differences in opinion amongst different country blocks. Copenhagen managed something in the order of 650 ppm.
In other words, I am pessimistic and have to allow that worst case IPCC case is probably the least that will face our children and grandchildren.
IMO, the logical evolution for skeptical views will be, from denying that globe is warming, to denying that we are causing it, to denying that it is a bad thing, and finally to their last stance - admitting that it is us, it will be bad, but we cannot do anything about it as it is now too late. My guess is that in the mid term future we will start seeing this position more and more.
