Way to frame the debate (what little is allowed) while hiding behind the rubric of “science”.

Now the AGW believers can get back to fiddling with their computer projections that can’t even recreate what has already happened while disingenuously asking what possible motive the grant seeking scientists have for feeding the hysteria. The true denialism is strong with the man-made global warming religionists.

Be sure to take the time to read this well-referenced debunking of that decade-old denialist hoax, folks! Merely in the interest of seeing both sides of the argument transparently, you understand …

Here is what I see in the media and weblogs on the subject:

I see people who follow the Church of Global Warming (I didn’t stutter) who deny, Deny, DENY that there could be ANY opposing view, anybody who says we aren’t going to die is WRONG WRONG WRONG and they are being financed by the Big Oil Companies and Big Industry.

You’re reading very different ones to me, then. That sounds much more like the spun versions of climate science reports. I’ll admit that there’s probably as many primitivist back-to-the-Stone-Age kooks as there are hardcore denialists, but the problem with the political polarisation of this debate is that it’s too easy to lose sight of the middle ground, which is largely populated by experienced professionals who are extremely worried about the condition of our ecology, and who stand to gain nothing but opprobrium from telling us their concerns.

As a side note, I think it’s a little cheeky to get all pre-emptive with the accusations of flame-wars when you’ve just revived a months-old thread, seemingly for no purpose other than to coax a flame war? We like a good debate here, but I’d prefer it if you’d back up your opinions with source material. That way it becomes a debate, as opposed to mudslinging, surely?

Of course, there’s a small chance I’m not but what people tend to skip over is that scientific consensus is not a summary of opinions but rather a summary of results. When people say ’90% of climate scientists’ agree they actually mean ’90% of the results of scientific papers’ agree. That’s a completely different thing.

The thing I don’t understand about the whole flame war that this inevitably descends into is what climate change denialists think the other side’s motives are. It’s easy to say someone linked to the oil business is going to strongly protest anything that tells them they have to cut down on their profits. However, what is there for climate scientists to gain by claiming warming is happening and it’s a problem? They’ll be suffering the consequences just like the rest of us, it’s not in their interest to be doom and gloom. In fact, if anything, their nature as human beings on this planet is more likely for them to skew their results towards less damage caused by global warming, not more.

A lot of climate scientists have been studying and practicing their methods for most of their lives. Disagreeing with the vast majority of them because you don’t like their prognosis is like ignoring your doctor when he tells you you have cancer. I know I’m not qualified to make either assessment, so I trust the judgment of those who do.