Thanks ER
For saying this far more eloquently than I can...
...if I had to make a decision, the potential severity of the problem, as well as my estimate of the persuasive value of conflict of of interest, leads me to believe that the burden of proof is with the denialists. I simply find it harder to believe that this a liberal/careerist plot by the scientific community than it is a cynical maneuver to protect profits. If I'm wrong, then I am advocating a policy which will probably lead to some economic dislocation. If they're wrong, it could potentially cause climatological change which would alter civilization on this planet forever. Therefore, I believe the burden of proof should be on the denialists.