Sorry to say, but your reactions are really proving my original premise rather than refuting it - the defensive, flock behavior, the attempts to interpret my contribution as a personal attack, the tactic of making the question a political, moral or religious issue. Some people even go as far as mentioning the Oregon petition, which was not really relevant even by the time it was signed (1998), much less 15 years later, as some of the people who signed it admit themselves.
But the subject of the climate change is not a religious,political, moral or philosophical question, it's not like asking "Is it okay to eat animal meat" or "is there a God"?
The climate change is an observed phenomenon, much like sunset or gravity, and therefore it is measurable and provable or refutable. There are really two main questions concerning the problem:
1) Is it happening?
The answer is - yes, it is happening, the evidence is overwhelming, well documented and conclusive. If you don't know or believe this, please read something on the subject. The following link is a nice summary, but I encourage you to look up any relevant, cited scientific study from the last 5 years
2) Are humans the primary cause?
Well, the natural causes can explain the speed and the intensity of the change, that much is proven. And the study from the last year changed the mind of most of the sceptics among the scientists (97 percent of climate scientists now acknowledge humans are the primary cause of the ongoing change)
There really is no controversy, or baricade between adherents and sceptics in the scientific worls, as Jafo has tried to put it:
The barricade, it seems, remains around those who still failed to get informed and/or accept the recent scientific findings on the subject, built by their very own hands.
So, do you "have to believe"? Absolutely not, science is not a theocratic regime, it merely presents results and findings. Everyone can believe what he/she wants, that's one of the basic human rights. After all, there was a case of a school teacher tried at court for teaching evolution theory in school as late as 1925, so that proves even large groups of people (and especially large groups of people) can resist the progress of scientific knowledge very successfully.
But it seems to me (and that's my subjective impression only), that saying: "I am an informed and open-minded individual, but I refuse the recent scientific findings in selected areas, where I prefer to believe what I like for some reason" is quite ridiculous. People practice this Orwellian "double think" every day in many areas, but this topic is special because it makes it so blatantly obvious.
The truly intellectually honest person would have to ask: "What drives me to cling to a refuted system of beliefs?" and would search for the answer within his/her own mind - and who knows, perhaps he/she would find something worth the effort and pain.