Perhaps Here I should point out as someone whose formal science Education finished at 16, I admit complete ignorance of the scientific details and arguement. I don't know whether Global warming is actually a total myth, a natural occurance or a manmade disaster but that isn't my point here. My post has to do with how the issue is being perceived.
And in the interests of disclosure, not a climatologist am I (indeed some of my later education has been dubbed by some commentators to be in 'psuedo-science'
)
I'm certainly not preachy on the subject nor do I recall ever condemning anyone's expressed views on the subject, but I tend to accept what appears to me to be the consensus position among what experts there are in the area - that the planet is undergoing climate change and that man is contributing to this effect. What the ultimate change will be and just what contribution man is making to this, I can't pretend to know, nor does it seem that there is a great deal of agreement on this issue.
I tend to support movement away from fossil fuels towards alternative energy sources as much because the fossil fuels are finite energy resources which may come under significant strain in my lifetime as much as because of any environmental factors - though I would give credence to the better safe than sorry view.
1) It's quite clear to me (and I don't know about anyone else) that the global warming debate has nowadays has almost nothing to do with Science; science is just background to which seems at times to be little more than the old "Free market: good or not?" debate (see point #3) . Whenever GW is brought up it seems to bring out the sort of people with my level of scientific training showing bar charts and graphs of CO2 emissions and weather changes (or whatever) in order to "prove" something - how much people in the world could honestly say they are informed enough to make an honest assessment of this issue (a couple thousand maybe?).
Side note: the science of Climatology in the modern sense was pretty much invented in the 1970s in order to investigate the strange levels of climate change going on in that decade (and to cool fears of Global cooling or the nascent Global warming idea) and so to claim that scientists themselves would have a fantastic knowledge of climatic changes would be false (though one thing we do know is that Climates have changed very rapidly in the past; with no apparent reason. But that's going outside my field.)
Certainly most of the debate we are being presented with in the media has little to do with actual science and more to do with politics, but I think it's fair to say that that may be true of most areas of scientific controversy. Scientists after all don't seek truth or to convince others through debate or discussion (usually), but through experiments and publication of results thereof. Those who step before a camera or whatever are much more likely to have an 'agenda' of some description.
I would tend to agree that some people making a lot of noise of this issue (on both sides) would seem to me to be found wanting in terms of actual scientific acumen.
2) The smear claims by "the left" against Scientific sceptics of Global warming goes against the Scientific method - under this theory all these scientists are little more than quislings hired by powerful corporations to put out knowingly false information to woodhink the public into doubting the "Scientific Consensus" on Global warming so that these corporations can continue polluting without any fear of action against them. Ignoring that in the long term this really doesn't make much sense, why would a business, any business, want to deny something which could seriously dent (to put it mildly) it's long term profitability - after all we are talking about the near future here?, there is one seriously act of groupthink going on here - The idea of all knowing Scientific consensus which holds all the knowledge is somewhat unfalliable and that rogue scientists are easily explained. This is a strange idea, for a start history has shown over and over again that a vast majority of scientists tend to be wrong until proven otherwise - So using this logic light would travel within a mysterious substance called the Ether until Einstein came along and created a "new Scientific consensus" or that Earth really was the centre of the universe and the Sun circled around it, until that damn Gaillieo chap showed otherwise (an Idea which in it's day was far too dangerous for the guardians of truth - here being the Catholic Church - to handle.) The idea of Science is based around constant questioning of the physical properties of the world and so the idea of a "consensus" is itself against the idea of Science as it accepts a widely held universal truth, like well, the idea that sun revolves around the Earth. (This is also why, btw, rejecting the idea of god is also unscientific.) This is of course not to say that the majority of Global warming scientists are wrong (but it is very, very wrong to state that the only ones who doubt Global warming are corporate scientists.) but that the way of thinking of this issue is totally skewed.
Ah, now here I do have some disagreement. I think there are logical reasons why a company would seek to deny global warming even if they believed it was happening and would hinder long term profits. Companies don't necessarily think in the long term (certainly not in the term lengths such that global warming would hinder them) - because the company's direction is set by director's with short to medium term profitability goals. And, of course, if the company by its nature (e.g. oil production) would be damaged in the short term if it became accepted that man made factors were driving significant climate change, necessitating radical lifestyle change to accomodate the fight against such change - then it's rational for company's to actively seek to deny it. (An analogy may be there somewhere with the denials by tobacco company's for so long about the health implications of smoking.)
You are right that history has shown that 'rogue scientists' are oft proven right - they are however moreoften proven wrong. In an age when our lives are more dependent than ever on scientific developments in many aspects of our everyday living, if a significant majority of scientists (in the relevant field) tell us that there research leads them to believe something, I'll tend to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Side note: Another thing I happen to notice is that those who tend to be most in favour of "action" against GW among my age group tend to have learnt about it in school (this is certainly true in Europe) and tend to be politically minded - showing once again the stupidity of relying on schooling for one's education
I'm not sure if your conclusion necessarily follows logically from the preceeding statement here.
I'd comment further here but the effect fot hat may be to derial the initial subject matter, so I'll hold for the time being.
