You might not be able to convince the deniers that have other interests in mind... but you might be able to enlighten the less informed among them, or the people that feel they don't have enough information.

From my experience, when talking about issues like global warming, people tend to form an opinion first and only then selectively seek out data to support it.

There are two kinds of people on the issue: those who are certain of their position, and those who say they're not conclusively convinced one way or the other. "Those who are certain" are far louder and more idiotic on both sides. This headline is an example.

It's interesting that people on the sky-is-falling side of climate change feel that science is unassailable -- at least by the common man. Paid professionals make consensus decisions, and the rest of us should sit down and be quiet.

I have no idea what man's involvement with climate change is, or what the moral ramifications are (I doubt much, but I'm willing to listen) But I think I know what science is supposed to be: provisional, tentative, and falsifiable. And it's not being treated this way. To me that's why this issue is at the top of my list of cultural things to complain/argue about. It's destroying the essence of what science really means.

It's called the search for "corroborative evidence", where the latter is an oxymoron. Labels a non-scientist like nothing else, although we scientists catch ourselves doing that mistake just about every day.

I don't think you understand that:

* It's Jesus who makes the weather

* Minnesota needs some warming up

* Polar warming creates a lucrative new northern shipping passage

When you combine things like your first point and things like your third, it's hard to tell if you're being facetious. I'll assume you are for now.

Ok now I'm the one who's officially freaked out now.