What fascinates me about the cimate debate is how laypeople use and misuse science and scientists. The deniers are notoriously fickle: depending on what they're saying, 'scientists' are a bunch of greedy, fame-seeking idiots with a liberal agenda and a penchant for global governance. Meanwhile, the lesser-light defenders of AGW are constantly telling you that everything they say is backed by 'scientists' and can end any discussion with a simple "you know nothing about science." Sadly, the 'consensus' has become a crutch for the unthinking breed of environmentalist--one with which they will gleefully beat their opposition. Neither of these groups seem particularly interested in the scientific method.

So, what does it feel like to be fought over like this?

Personally, I think it's time people became more scientifically literate. By which I don't mean re-taking high school physics, but learning about the scientific method, and other systems of objective, critical thought. Chris Mooney seems really good on this topic. Can't wait til I can get a hold of this book.

Jones-

I agree completely.  I think that we (university faculty) have done a poor job of explaining how science works, instead we just tell students the results (F=ma, E=mc^2, etc.).  As a result, they have no way to sort through contentious scientific debates.  Tobacco companies, for example, have used that effectively to their advantage.  We need to do a better job!

Thanks!

I meant to include in my comment that the denialists will change their tune in a second, once some nuance comes along that they can distort into "seems the science isn't settled after all".

Andrew, you're right. I think that if my science profs in university had spent more time talking about science (and I don't mean "science in our world"), I'd have gotten much better marks. It's only later that I've come to appreciate the "greater" scientific method as this incredible disciplining and organizing force for individual or collective thought. If only writers in other fields cared about the difference between a well-tested and a poorly-tested hypothesis.

The real travesty is that many "science illiterates" ("ignoranti scientiae"?) have been led down this deceitful path of denialism and delay unwittingly and are being manipulated to their own detriment and that of their children.

IANVS

You can't win 'm all... Sometimes you just leave them in the mud. The denialists are still out there making noise, but they are losing the war. In the end science will come out on top because it is truthful. Not perfect and not all knowing, but sincere and ultimately that beats the paid PR companies.

It is difficult to argue with these people because it doesn't matter what the subject is, HIV, holocaust, GW, evolution, they use the same tactics, arguments and methods.