The question is not why people don’t believe in climate science, it’s why don’t they blindly believe in selective and less than absolutely accurate climate science. Believable and sound science use to be based on the ‘scientific method’ , where a theory or hypothesis was developed, critically analyzed, peer reviewed (by true experts) and continuously updated and improved with time based on the most accurate and recent data available. The recently and politically develop concepts of ‘scientific consensus’, the ‘debate is over’ and ‘all the projections are absolutely correct’ has nothing to do with the scientific method or reasonably sound and accurate science. Those who apparently are either ignorant of the scientific method or choose to ignore real science development, most often have no idea of the extreme complexities and variability’s’ involved with the current climate models, or the accuracy of short, medium and long term projections. It is primarily due to these political details why ‘global warming’ has transitioned since the 1980’s-90’s to ‘climate change’ today, and that political media/special interests (those who often benefit financially) have claimed all changes of weather patterns (real or not; statistically) are solely due to anthropological causes. What is almost always missing in reasonably intelligent, scientific debate is: “What is the probability of constraining most, if not all, anthropological greenhouse gases on significantly changing future climate patterns?”. In other words, after the world expends all its discretionary resources, what are the actual-most probable benefits? I’ll give you a hint, it could be insignificant compared to dedicating those same resources towards actions that have successfully enable mankind to evolve from the Stone Age: ‘adaptation’.