So there are two broad categories of people that will read this post:
Roughly speaking: approximately half of us BELIEVE that this is a cultural phenomenon, perpetuated by left-leaning media and left-leaning scientists that has effectively "branded" the idea of "global warming", "global climate change", "etc" and that it is, essentially, a ploy by profiteers and politicians to stage a "moral high-ground" stance on the matter to further their agenda which, generally, has to do with increased regulations and economic sanctions. People who share some semblance of this agenda cite ongoing scientific research by numerous organizations as claim to proof that their view is accurate and that their agenda is justified. Half of us BELIEVE that the scientific research cited, in these cases, is at best a highly biased perspective and at worst has been fabricated to comply with the image and branding necessary to support said agenda.
Roughly speaking: approximately half of us BELIEVE that humanity has somehow reached a level of unmitigated industrialization that is causing "greenhouse gas" emissions to increase, unchecked. Half of us BELIEVE that these emissions CAUSED BY HUMANS are changing atmospheric composition in ways that are, and will continue to, alter the climate of the planet. Half of us BELIEVE that these changes in the climate will have repercussions on things like water supply (rainfall/drought), agriculture, animal habitat dynamics, etc, and that while these repercussions are difficult to predict accurately, they are expected to be generally detrimental in nature. Half of us BELIEVE that these detrimental repercussions are happening now and will continue to compound/increase with further unmitigated greenhouse gas emissions that we, humans, are directly responsible for.
Broadly speaking: Nearly none of us will actually go find out the facts for ourselves. Half of us do not feel the need to verify the facts because the evidence is so overwhelmingly clear and we trust the information to be accurate, we trust the people who claim to have the expertise in these matters of science in the same way we trust the people who designed the airbus A380 enough to board one and let it take us to Japan.
The other half of us do not feel the need to verify the facts because we do not trust the information to be accurate, we do not trust the people who claim to have the expertise in these matters of science.
There are individuals among us who fall somewhere in between:
Some of us BELIEVE that there is scientific consensus on the matter and that there is something happening to the climate but that it is NOT caused by humans.
Some of us BELIEVE that there is scientific consensus on the matter and that there is something happening to the climate which can be directly attributed to human activities, BUT that nothing should be done because it would jeopardize the economy, national security, etc...
Time will ultimately tell:
Of these two major and several minor perspectives on the matter - a consensus has been reached through disagreement, in a manner of speaking:
Those who BELIEVE in the science generally believe that the changes will become ever increasingly apparent within the next 50-100 years - That there is a consensual hypothesis that has been made and is in the process of continuous refinement by the global scientific community. This hypothesis will be proven true or false as time passes and as conditions change, for better or worse...With time, if conditions change for better, diverging from these hypothetical projections, it will be taken less seriously. If conditions change for the worse, converging on these hypothetical projections, it will gain more attention and be taken more seriously by people at large.
Those who BELIEVE only in the political agendas, chocking it up to alarmism and theatrics generally believe that either nothing is changing, or that the climate is changing but that there is nothing we can do about it because we aren't the cause of it or because it would represent unacceptably risky exposure to our economy and national security. These perspectives, too, will be time-tested: If conditions change for the better/not at all, then it's business as usual...they'll see the same alarmism and hijacked science coming from their "opponents".
But if conditions change for the worse, things will get interesting: Maybe you'll explain the changes you're noticing as having been caused by the sun or some other non-human source. As conditions get worse, however, and a hypothesis you've been told is bunk is actually turning out to be the answer to all the drought, famine (not here in the US, just higher prices) mass exodus' from shoreline civilizations, rises in pest-born diseases, higher intensity and longer lasting storms, more Katrinas, etc... How bad do things have to get before you actually start believing that this climate change thing is actually happening? How bad do things have to get before you actually start believing that this climate change thing is actually caused by humanity? How bad to things have to get before you actually start believing that the rules should be changed to stop humanity from causing the changes?
How bad do things have to get for you to actually finish reading that ^
Food for thought:
Is that ^ also leftist hockeystick propaganda?
Is it a lie that your grandchildren will live on a planet with 50% fewer species than you do?
If things do get worse and what you thought was just political propaganda and leftist nonsense turns out to have been real moral high ground, don't worry - you're not a bad person, you just rooted for the wrong team and now it's time to pay the piper...but at least give those of us who say "we told you so" the respect we deserve when we're all suffering together.