What is the number one, by far in terms of effect and quantity - Greenhouse gas? Water vapor, by a factor of 90%+ of the total greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. The entire greenhouse gas debate falls to the scientifically based "projections" of greenhouse gas effects. Those projections are admittedly incorrect by those same scientists who formulate those projections because of their inability to properly model the 90%+ single most important greenhouse gas - water vapor. This means that the whole debate of greenhouse gas effects is based on a flawed model. Harping, fussing and consternation about an unknown is much like debating our best response to dragons, witches and trolls.

There is a wide range of opinion on the climate change debate. Some people think carbon dioxide controls everything and some people think that it has no effect on the climate at all. As usual the truth is probably somewhere in between. I have looked into the issue enough to be comfortable saying that it is not a “crisis”.

Uh oh, a lot of BAD labels flung out if I dared deny Holocaust. I do deny it.
No evidence for it.
Now it's good to define words. Science comes from the word meaning to know.
Not a theory. Not a hypothesis.
Until there's solid proof? And yes, it might be too late then, there's so much conflicting information on climate that I am a climate agnostic.
Apparently volcanoes pollute far more than other things , but is it really the same?

Isn't how they combine important?

I read both sides, both good.
I'm all for no cars. And all that factory pollutant? Surely bad?

Nobody agrees. It's all over the place. I see no answers.

Denial is different than skepticism. Science cannot move forward without skepticism because in order to pursue truth, ideas have to be challenged.
I think politically, ever since we had "holocaust deniers", the idea of a "denier" can be associated with kook lunatic conspiracy theorist nutjob.
I believe the right is more open to science and changing our understanding if there is firm evidence that correlation exists.... something beyond a computer model or chalkboard theory.
The left denies science if it interferes with their goals or beliefs in social justice.

We are “still evolving “as a species and Groups of tribes that it just seems to take us to the edge over and over.

The Human Mind is designed to believe in things,it does not matters what it is. The Subject is not based on Religion personal views. Human societies thru out history have believed in a whole range of ideologies. Even people who believe that we are just carbon units still have a belief. The Human experience is guided by social norms, laws, religions, beliefs Etc. Without rules or laws to govern human nature we are chaotic. Order is created out of chaos. Evil versus good, there will always be a balance to the human experience. Self realization whether thru physical, mental, spiritual Process creates a uniformity in human experience.

When the term 'denialism' is used instead of 'skepticism', it is pretty clear that the issue has been framed in conflict-encouraging terms. Too bad. In my experience, to paraphrase Feynmann, the really good science is done by people who question their own premises every day, and whose efforts are focused on disproving their hypotheses. Science and scientists without this focus are subject to snowballing confirmation bias.

Confirmation bias and the Dunning-Kruger Effect, aka Mount Stupid. Happens to people on both sides.

Man made climate change is not a Scientific fact it is a theory please know difference

No discipline called “science” requires shame as a factor in proving the thesis.
The scientific method requires challenge to prove the assertions. Shaming challenge is not science. That would be religion.

The words “HYPOTHETICAL” computer modeling cannot be described as a “SETTLED” science.
The capitalized words say so.

I actually think the lefts science denial is worse. The reason I say this is that the right denies science that is a bit esoteric. Climate change and evolution denial is not as clear and immediately visible. The lefts denial is often of measurable stuff like gender or vaccination or nuclear power or GMO safety.
The right denies theoretical science and the left seems to deny applied science.
All of this is because it is motivated by each brands political bias. Facts and evidence that does not fit with worldview are denied.

I argue the rights is less of a real issue (unless you think the earth will be destroyed by climate change in 12 years) because we can see the immediate detrimental effects on health vaccine denial or GMO production. I also notice that the left tends to reject science it thinks benefits big business. Part of the anti capitalist aspect. If an immediate applied science is made profitable, the science itself gets attacked.

The right attacks science that tends to threaten culture norms or cohesion or capitalism. So evolution threatens religion and climate change threatens economics. They don’t care to see how evolution played in to GMO creation or that climate change may cost money. However both of these things are harder to quantify than the benefit of modifying a food so that it cuts down on pesticide use or will grow in a tough climate.

The same people crying about climate change causing starvation and plague don’t seem to want us using evolutionary science to make climate resistant food, build reactors or make vaccines to prevent plague.