I hesitate to start this topic since it creates a lot of strong opinions on both sides, but looking more broadly, it's not any more divisive than another issue where I changed sides about three decades ago. In hindsight, the views I originally held were no more sensible than they are today, although there's a lot less evidence today for my old views. That topic is evolution, and generally, people don't change their minds because, despite attempts by long-agers to come up with alternatives to the Big Bang, they've been unable to. That leaves two main alternatives - The Big Bang (which for many reasons is no longer sustainable) or Creation (which is not acceptable to many because it involves a Creator). Given such a dilemma, which do most people push - or at least follow without questioning?
The parallels with man-made global warming are considerable. "Everybody" agrees with it so no alternative exists - or at least doesn't get coverage. I should at this stage eliminate "real" environmental problems which exist, and in many cases are caused by humans. The publisher of a science text for secondary students was asked (when he was in NZ early this century) to identify what he saw as the top ten environmental issues. The first two were water - fresh and salt. I think the third was the loss of biodiversity, but please don't ask what the others were - even if I didn't have memory issues, it was a couple of decades ago.)
He was asked why man-made global warming wasn't even on his list and he did not see it as a top-ten issue. Was he a climate denier? The items on his list were certainly serious, but not global warming?
I am in an uncertain frame about this whole topic. It seems that our weather is changing.
We recently had bad flooding in Dunedin - the worst in 100 years or more. Except it wasn't. Someone has taken issue with their claims - and backed it up with old newspaper reports. They're waiting on retractions from TVNZ and RNZ.
We see similar reports about a hurricane causing havoc in Florida. According to media reports it's unprecedented. But again it's not. In the 1920s were two similar-sized hurricanes. A reason that Florida's development was held back is there were many violent storms.
That is why we often think we're in certain peril, but the media knows disaster sells and seems to have lost (or abandoned) its ability to analyse before letting fly with such headlines. Sadly it seems most of us prefer to rely on people who attract readers through sensational headlines.
The real trouble with this is few readers, let alone journalists, know the real significance of the facts. This also means that few of our politicians know the true situation. It seems we have sadly lost the skills we trusted in journalism - which gives even more credence to conspiracy theories.