This article was not particularly insightful - it contained lots of classic proof by assertion. It doesn't treat seriously any of the valid criticisms of the cu

This article was not particularly insightful - it contained lots of classic proof by assertion. It doesn't treat seriously any of the valid criticisms of the current thought and research processes on global warming. That said, I'm not going to flag it because I think it deserves some thought and rebutting. The author asks, "Why doesn't everyone believe in climate change when most experts do?" This is the start of his answer: > It certainly predates the leaked emails (on which there is surely nothing more to say). Firstly we have the obvious psychological issues. We’re predisposed to undervalue adverse outcomes which are a long way off in the future, especially if we might be old or dead soon. He starts with the assumption that climate change is real, and then starts trying to figure out why anyone wouldn't believe in it. There are a number of valid reasons to raise questions about what is happening in climate change, the magnitude of it, and how dangerous it might be. Here are a few: First, if it's really happening to an extent as to require severe urgency, you ought to be able to say things like this: The current average temperatures and standard deviations of temperatures in these 50 regions are X and Y. We expect the temperatures to rise by A over this period of time in at least 35 of these regions, and the standard deviation to increase by B. If this does not happen over the next five years, that creates serious doubt in our claims and methodologies. Instead, they're using a lot of backwards-looking, unfalsifiable propositions. A hurricane hits? They blame it on climate change. No hurricanes? Still, climate change. Going further - very many, if not most cultures have believed that the world was in danger of ending during their lifetime. This is a recurring theme throughout history. Obviously, they've pretty much all been wrong so far. When people mention the very prominent global cooling that everyone was scared about, that I was taught to be scared about in school, they say, "Oh, scientists never believed that. It was just a media thing." Then you've got things like the fact that there's pretty conclusive records of farming in Greenland as recently as 700 years ago, that died out due to the Earth getting colder. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland#Norse_settlement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland#Norse_settlement There's a decent amount of literature and support for the idea that the Earth is coming out of an Ice Age. So if things are getting hotter, that's not even to say that it's a bad thing or that humans are causing the bulk of it. Regardless, a lot of people seem to be concluded that global warming is happening, it's very severe, and we must do something immediately. The matter is no longer open for research and debate, because it is an emergency, and any dissenting views are unwelcome. They're pointing to experts as having a consensus, but there's not a consensus, and many of the experts have very recently been shown to do some serious scientific misconduct. Some of the people who believed in widespread, extremely dangerous, human caused climate change are a bit more skeptical now that there's been the evidence of pretty severe scientific misconduct. (For instance, destroying data created that was publicly funded in response to a proper Freedom of Information request). So, the main argument for climate change is that there's an expert consensus, but now there's a show of serious scientific misconduct among the experts. Shouldn't everyone be a touch more skeptical after that? I mean, regardless of how convinced you were, don't you have to be less convinced now? Then they get to things like this: > More than all that, I can spot the same rhetorical themes re-emerging in climate change foolishness that you see in aids denialism, homeopathy, and anti-vaccination conspiracy theorists. Look, smart people can go through data and claims. There are smart people who do not believe the current mainstream views of climate change. This does not make them "deniers" or purveyors of pseudo-science. The burden of proof is much more heavy on the people that wish to add expensive political controls to citizens' lives than it is on the people that don't want those controls. The current views on climate change are by no means proven - slinging mud by saying anyone who doesn't believe in climate change is gullible or an idea or a denier of science is not right, it is not correct, it is not proper, and ought to be an additional red flag that there's something not right with the official positions on climate change. Legitimate science does not conduct itself like this, because it does not have to.