Is this some of that "moral equivalency"? The fact that scientists get paid to be scientists is hardly the same as political science majors getting paid to write editorials attacking scientific results. You can't transform an apple into an orange.

Tell me, Tom, are the editorials of paid lobbyists peer-reviewed? By other paid lobbyists? Gimme a break. In politics, everybody's opinion is equal. In science nobody's opinion counts, only evidence, rational and logical development of arguments, and repeatability and verifiability of results.

The verdict that global warming is real came out of that rigorous process. The emerging verdict that global warming is caused predominantly by human actions comes with the same strong credibility.

The denial of global warming is based on nothing more than ideology and wishful thinking.

Certainly scientists who are "alarmist" get a lot more publicity than their more cautious counterparts.

Again, gimme a break. There's notoriety in being the first to raise the alarm. There's no ego gratification or career reward for joining the consensus of thousands of scientists. Using your own logic, it's more valid to suspect that the paid nay-sayers in a tiny minority are rewarded that way for standing out from the crowd. They certainly have the material gratitude of the polluters.

--Robert