"We can't even believe in "official" measurements, as data sets relied upon to track global temperatures have again been shown to be contaminated and otherwise compromised."
"Remember the sea ice that doomsters warned would soon be gone? It's now at the very same level it was in 1979."and outright lies:
"this IPCC report, much-hyped-and-hallowed by alarmists and media-drones alike, represents the combined work of only 52 carefully cherry-picked UN scientists"
Update 1/28: Some related points on a comment by Gavin Starks on Tim O'Reilly's "Radar" site:
A tough nut, indeed.
We're all aware of the emotive language used to polarize the climate change debate.
There are, however, deeper patterns which are repeated across science as it interfaces with politics and media. These patterns have always bothered me, but they've never been as "important" as now.
We are entering an new era of seismic change in policy, business, society, technology, finance and our environment, on a scale and speed substantially greater than previous revolutions. The sheer complexity of these interweaving systems is staggering.
Much of this change is being driven by "climate science", and in the communications maelstrom there is a real risk that we further alienate "science" across the board.
We need more scientists with good media training (and presenting capability) to change the way that all sciences are represented and perceived. We need more journalists with deeper science training - and the time and space to actually communicate across all media. We need to present uncertainty clearly, confidently and in a way that doesn't impede our decision-making.
On the climate issue, there are some impossible levers to contend with;
- Introducing any doubt into the climate debate stops any action that might combat our human impact.
- Introducing "certainty" undermines our scientific method and its philosophy.
When represented in political, public and media spaces, these two levers undermine every scientific debate and lead to bad decisions.