John wrote:

>For example: when I get into arguments I often need to prove that a huge majority of climate scientists believe in human-caused global warming. I got tired of looking up the evidence every time I needed it. So, I wrote Global warming - scientific opinions. Now I can just go there and grab text whenever I need it!

From the scientific opinions:

>In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University.

> poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman in Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists.

>A 2010 paper by Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers

>The scientists polled were members of the American Geophysical Union or the American Meteorological Society

I guess every climate sceptic would at this point infer that it is clear that those people (earth scientists, climate researchers etc.) have to approve
climate change, since in some sense they often make their living by drawing attention to this problem.

And I think there is a point to this. Of course there is something as "scientific evidence" and one should hope that scientists are
as neutral as possible when it comes to "evidence". However the fiercer the academic competition gets the more this may get
"challenged". Furthermore I could imagine that a lot of those climate change deniers would change their minds if they would get
a decent "way out" (of their opinion). That is on one hand there are concrete economic/selfish considerations playing a role in opinion building, i.e. if
you are a boss of an oil company you want to sell that stuff (otherwise you loose your job) and on the other hand there are sociological considerations. Like
if you polarize people on some topic you allow for a stronger social cohesion of an "opinion group". I guess one can
see this to some extend at the example of the climate change funders:
>Donors exhibit sharp differences of opinion on many issues, Ball said. They run the spectrum of conservative opinion, from social conservatives to libertarians. But in opposing mandatory cuts to greenhouse gas emissions, they found common ground.

Or simplified: the right feels "right" as a group thanks to the "feel" that climate change appears to them as "not real" and "made up by climate change researchers interest groups etc."

John wrote:

>I don’t think it’s a complete mistake, because if you can’t prove you understand something about these questions, they won’t pay attention when you start talking about WHAT SHOULD WE DO ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING.

Concluding: For a climate science researcher a climate change denier may look "irrational" in the sense of denying scientific evidence. But
how irrational really is it to say 1+1=0 if this is motivated by a huge self-interest or more politely: if this is fed by a strong need for self-preservation?

I think adressing these problems is crucial for getting to WHAT SHOULD WE DO ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING.
And this refers not only to the question of acknowledging climate change but also to the question of why we got there on the first place.
(thats by the way also the reason, why I am trying to filter out main mechanisms of such dynamics e.g. in
Surplusses and Exchange and think on how to adress them in a
game draft)