To climate change deniers I would ask: why wouldn't changing the chemical composition of the atmosphere have calamitous effects? Did you think that sending many millions of years worth of stored co2 from the ground into the atmosphere in the the blink of an eye wouldn't have adverse consequences? Also where did you get your degrees in climatology? If you don't have degrees in climatology, how is it that you think you can dispute the consensus of an entire field of scientific study? Is your scholarship in this field so profound that you can dismiss the research of hundreds of doctoral thesis on this matter?
There really is no denial that the climate is changing and calling one group deniers does a disservice to the discussion by creating a polarization.of such magnitude, it turns into a shouting match. To that end, please see the link I provided earlier,
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02148/RSL-HouseOfCommons_2148505a.pdf
Yes it is by Richard Lindzen and yes he has received $2,500 a day plus expenses for consultation to big oil. He's also tenured at MIT. I don't consider that amount a lot of money. It's a hundred times less than a former secretary of state gets and maybe a 1000 times less than Tony Robbins gets. But the link, while a lot of pages, is an exceedingly rapid read.
Changing the atmospheric conditions does not automatically translate to solely calamitous effects. It can and does permit the creation of certain industries, say wine production that benefit from minor temperature changes. It also likely means that other crops won't do as well and their production will have to shift to other geographical ares. But it's always been like this.
No, I don't have a degree in climatology and neither does a glaciologist, geologist, marine biologist, forensic archaeologist, chemist, physicist, lawyer, politician, or money manager. Some have weighed in on this topic and some may have published on very specific aspects whose findings may be of varied importance or not. So, when you read some website or organization is supported by scientists find out who, what their creds are, and how many. While one's at it, see how this figure of 97% consensus was arrived at.
Doctoral theses are typically narrow in scope. They have to be because these folks are still neophytes, wet behind the ear, and it's time to start doing some real work and gain experience.
I admit my understanding of climatology isn't very deep, and that experts can be wrong. If I go to an oncologist and he tells me I have cancer, yeah, I might get a second opinion. If I get a second, third, fourth, and tenth opinion, all from qualified oncologists who all have reached the same diagnosis, I would like to think I would be convinced at that point, much as I would dread the news. So what would you call someone who receives the expert opinion of dozens of professionals and then rejects their conclusions because they are inconvenient?
Yes, you'll go to other oncologists, maybe some specializing in what your cancer is and who may be involved in unique clinical trials. But you won't go to a gastroenterologist, an internist, a chiropractor. Yet they're all professionals. Being a professional in a tangential field doesn't necessarily qualify you to weigh in with authority on something where your own work is incidental. Well maybe not to that person. Ever had a sh!tty doctor, mechanic, optomotrist, or house inspection? They're professionals.
Understand my friend, I'm not against alternative sources of energy. I'm excited over the advancements in battery technology, solar cell efficiency improvements, algae, and god knows what else. I don't like air pollution but I'm aware that all technological advances have their dark sides. Unintended consequences. No free lunch.