Years ago I had little opinion on climate change. During the big email scandal[1] I decided to look into it myself, as an outsider. I downloaded the leaked emai

Years ago I had little opinion on climate change. During the big email scandal[1] I decided to look into it myself, as an outsider. I downloaded the leaked emails. I downloaded various data sets. I also followed online arguments between climate scientists and climate skeptics. After trying to grok the mammoth amounts of data, I realized that it would take me forever just to come up to speed. I decided to focus on the arguments. What I found was that the climate scientists could answer every objection, and I could trace back to the data itself and validate what they were saying. The "skeptics" would either: repeat their claim without acknowledging the rebuttal, or would switch to arguing something else completely, or would not reply at all only to go somewhere else and repeat their rebutted claim(s) without modification. Being something of a skeptic myself (in an evidence-based way), I recognize this pattern of behavior. It's not skepticism; it's denial. It's a marketing campaign. When you have a true skeptic of climate change look into it, you end up with the Koch-funded Richard Muller deciding that, yeah, it's real science done well and that climate change is real. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann#CRU_email_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann#CRU_email_cont...