There are many flavors of "climate denial" in the states, some of which are (relatively) sober and reasonable. 1) "The climate is not warming" — obviously fals

There are many flavors of "climate denial" in the states, some of which are (relatively) sober and reasonable. 1) "The climate is not warming" — obviously false, unless you believe in dramatic conspiracy theories and falsification of evidence on a grand scale. 2) "The models are wrong" — this is on slightly stronger footing, since at least it's not attacking empirical evidence, but rather is discounting the extrapolations one can make from a highly simplified model of forcings and feedback effects. 3) "Warming is not chiefly caused by human activity, and thus we should not restrain our economy to stop it" — given the timing of recent warming this seems to go against the evidence, but there is also no counterfactual case against which to do real science. Once you get into the causal domain, things get muddier, leaving room for interpretation. 4) "Warming is happening, humans are causing it, but energy technology improvements + mitigation efforts will mean that ROI on carbon cutting measures today will be negative" — this is the most sophisticated argument I believe, and the hardest to refute. It comes down to how willing one is to roll the dice on the chance for catastrophic "runaway warming" in exchange for better quality of life today. One reason I believe you see these arguments emerge chiefly in the US is the fact that most global warming reduction schemes seem, by necessity, to involve international cooperation and the ceding of national sovereignty to some minor degree. Many Americans find this idea to be an absolute non-starter, generally disliking things with a whiff of globalism about them. What's the solution? Man, if I knew I wouldn't be sitting here commenting on a web forum...