The actual problem, of course, is that the bad science and the political happen, in this case, to agree. There will always be bad science to support an idea th

The actual problem, of course, is that the bad science and the political happen, in this case, to agree. There will always be bad science to support an idea that is politically useful. The superficial quality of the science, its apparent professionalism, depends on the power and wealth that depend on the political idea. That is sufficient to explain the prestige and apparent professionalism behind global warming. On the other hand, every issue has its cranks and skeptics, and whenever somebody stands to lose a lot of money because of an increase in human understanding, they will fight against it, demonize it, and cast doubt on it as effectively as possible. Cranks can tell a compelling story of the establishment's arrogant dismissal of them and refusal to engage intellectually, but their very unreasonableness creates the story. Sane, successful people exploit their position to marginalize cranks because debating with cranks on an intellectual level is a waste of time and effort. And the plum prize for a band of cranks is an aging genius of yesteryear, declining in his powers and feeling ignored and left behind by younger competitors. On the other hand, "everything-fun-is-bad-for-you" hair shirt crowd has definitely moved on from Sex to Consumption, and they're joined with the "we-privileged-deserve-nothing-we-have" hair shirt crowd. Attacking our primary energy source is a game-ending strike for people who are against consumption, so you can count on their instant unexamined enthusiasm for the idea. (I'm one of these, though a lazy and indifferent one.) On the other hand.... On the other hand, I'm never going to get anywhere reasoning like this. simply invest in my own sustainability and remain healthily sceptical about any new GW science A cop out, to be sure, but I can't come up with anything better.