[Skybird]

Climate sceptics are recycled critics of controls on tobacco and acid rain

http://www.project-syndicate.org/com...chs163/English
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...eptics-science

The fact is that the critics — who are few in number but aggressive in their attacks — are deploying tactics that they have honed for more than 25 years. During their long campaign, they have greatly exaggerated scientific disagreements in order to stop action on climate change, with special interests like Exxon Mobil footing the bill.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...-ipcc-sceptics

Influential sceptical commentators can afford to just throw mud and see what sticks, because they have what former PM Stanley Baldwin famously attacked back in 1931 as "power without responsibility." It's the same dynamic that allowed Sarah Palin to make up "death panel" myths to distort the US healthcare debate and get away with it— those in opposition just don't face the same scrutiny as those holding the incumbent establishment position. That's why inside newsrooms the balance of legitimacy has been allowed to tilt so considerably that the climate science controversy that was largely resolved is now live once again, despite the rock solid nature of the core facts.


Prolific climate deniers such as Ian Plimer, James Delingpole and Christopher Booker who deliberately spread untruths on climate change can be wrong 99% of the time and right for less than 1% of the time and still win the argument because the playing field simply isn't level. Equally, the IPCC can be right 99% of the time and wrong less than 1% of the time, and they still lose.