But you're still saying
that the people who are most worried about it have the most radical solutions planned.
Put it this way, if I thought that the rapture was happening on the 21st and I feared for a relative's immortal soul I would try literally anything to help save them.
If I was slightly less certain, but thought it might be, I might try to persuade them strongly, but I'd probably give up eventually.
Since I don't have any thoughts on it, I don't see why I should try and save anyone's soul before the 21st.
Using your rhetoric, it might go along the lines of "people most convinced that the rapture is happening are the ones most likely to have radical plans set out". If you really think the world is in danger, why would you do anything but try and find some way out? And if it was a shortish timescale with a lot to do, anything that you plan out is going to look radical in comparison to those of someone who doesn't accept that timescale. I guess what I'm really trying to say is, if you thought the sky really was falling, wouldn't you want to point out flaws you saw in other people's suggestions, and don't you think that if those people were simply shrugging you off and telling you the sky wasn't falling, that if you had good evidence it was then you would call them immoral as well?
Here's the real problem I have, which is why I went off on a rant (which I'm quite happy to apologise for). There's basically three explanations that I can see of why people might be so entrenched in false views about climate science:
1) They believe it for no good reason, it just feels right
2) They're stark-raving mad
3) They're conspiring with others to continue the supply of money to their research
The general sentiment tends to lie with 3, which is why I posted those two paragraphs. 1 seems to go against everything that defines good science, and it seems highly unlikely that this would be the cause for the environmental scientists who are at the fore of the research. 2 seems unlikely on such a large scale.
Now if you can offer a really good, plausible explanation as to why scientists on a very, very grand scale would be misinterpreting evidence, lying, or covering up, then I'll quite happily go on my merry way, but there doesn't seem anything to suggest that climate deniers/sceptics are anything other than minority conspiracy nuts or just people who would rather bury their heads in the sand than worry about things that they can't touch or see.
PS As I said before, I've got no bone to pick with scientific data, or scientific debates.