Replies

Speaking of ridicule, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301305_pf.html:

"There're people like [Lindzen] in every field of science. There are always people in the fringes. They're attracted to the fringe . . . It may be as simple as, how do you prove you're smarter than everyone else? You don't do that by being part of the consensus," Held says.

The other skeptics are portrayed as loonier than Lindzen (i.e. not to be taken seriously as scientists. The argument against human-caused warming is the one being ridiculed here. The AGW proponents who predict doom via tipping points invite ridicule since there is zero science in those scenarios, just speculation and rigged computer models. There's ridiculous statements by the other side as well.

As for violently opposed, that exists on both sides, for example peer review by skeptics is sorely lacking causing Gray and others to lash out at the publications. The violence on the human-caused side is often subtle since political correctness on the environment and other issues has thoroughly infected the mainstream. I used to read Scientific American 20 years ago and it's astounding to read it today.

Thanks for the link to the article. I certainly agree that the rhetoric is out of control. Of course, that was my point when I initially posted my reply to the other article ridiculing the mainstream scientists. Then I was accused of being closed minded ("faith-based") merely because I observed that many reputable qualified scientists think global warming exists and is caused by man-made CO2. Worse, I had the audacity to suggest that some of the alarmist (including bogeyman Al Gore) may actually believe those mainstream scientists are correct and thus may be acting (perhaps mistakenly) out of genuine concern. I must say that the political rhetoric in the U.S. seems to be out of control--on both sides of the aisle. Even scientific debates are reduced to a base argument that "you're either with us or against us." There seems to be very little reasoned debate in the U.S. these days.

Your points are all spot-on. The attacks on global warming skeptics is mainly ad hominem - they dont like the message so they attack the messanger.

"I used to read Scientific American 20 years ago and it's astounding to read it today."

SciAm has degenerated into being a font of agenda-driven political clap-trap. Very sad.