If you can't figure out why "Deniers" exist, this one article would explain my position. Unintended consequences are very common, especially when politics or ideology trump true science. At the end of the day, our ecosystem is very complex. I don't understand why I get this, but many in the "science" fields don't comprehend this until they stumble upon "unexpected" results - the fact that something is unexpected proves to me science didn't get them to their recommendations in the first place. Doesn't the basic scientific method say that a hypothesis is tested and results can be repeated? If so, there should be no unexpected results to social experiments/environmental policy/etc. Case in point, remember that hole in the ozone layer that was going to destroy the world:
The Leeds team found that beneath the Antarctic ozone hole, high-speed winds whip up large amounts of sea spray, which contains millions of salt particles.So why didn't people know about the sea spray 20 years ago? Why was this not studied or observed before now? No one wondered about the clouds in the whole process? This is what makes me say slow down on public/social policy when attempting to determine how, OR IF, to fix to planet. Is anyone looking to see if the planet will "fix" itself before we legislate ourselves back to the dark ages?
This spray then forms clouds, and the increased spray over the last two decades has made these clouds brighter and more reflective – helping to keep global warming in check.
Prof Carslaw described the phenomenon as an "unexpected and complex climate feedback".
He highlighted that atmospheric impacts on the climate were "inordinately complicated" and it was not unusual for unexpected consequences to be revealed.