Nice distinction between sceptics and denialists here if anyone’s interested:-
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627606.000-living-in-denial-when-a-sceptic-isnt-a-sceptic.html
And real world examples (HIV/AIDS; vaccines/autism) expressing some of the thread so far in a very balanced way:-
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627606.400-living-in-denial-questioning-science-isnt-blasphemy.html
A lot of it, as that second link implies, comes down to scientists being, as a group, pretty poor at communicating.
For the avoidance of doubt, my view (as a scientist) is that the climate is changing – like rob2, I have to help plan to keep water coming to you and shit being taken away from you, in assets that need to be maintained and built with customers’ money, and the uncertainties are large.
Uncertainty makes most people uncomfortable (civil engineers and accountants in the water industry are not immune 😉 ) which is why the media have to sell copy by presenting things as ‘crisp’ facts not a balance of probabilities. A good proportion of the population doesn’t seem to understand the concept even of ‘average’, let alone confidence intervals, given the number of drivers who slow down at average speed cameras only to speed up between them… 🙄
What we expect is climate, what we see out of the window is weather. Humans have evolved (uh-oh, now I’ve done it) to deal with the here and now, and really struggle with cause/effect beyond very short timescales. It’s up to scientists to clearly communicate these inter-generational issues to non-specialist sceptics (cf. denialists) and we’d better learn how to do that, fast.