...the chances that the AGW side is correct (that anthropogenic global warming is a severe threat to humanity's future) is about 80-90%.

The chances that the denialist position is just a dodge to avoid higher taxes, stricter regulation, and shifting to a less profitable business model, is about the same. Those are my opinions.

You are casting your comments as a straight-down-the-middle, purely objective, excruciatingly unbiased analysis, but they aren't and you know perfectly well they aren't, and so do we. They are placed here to blunt the criticism that hank is making. Tom, you're not fooling anybody, we've known you for years, we know exactly what you think and how you work. We like to think of ourselves as scientists here, not lawyers.

That's what I learned working for the Atomic Energy Commission. You simply cannot trust people who tend to profit or lose financially from a decision to be objective about it. And the more they have at stake, the less you can trust them. It doesn't tell you whether they are good or evil, right or wrong, just that you can't trust them. And once you have made your choice which side is right, that doesn't mean that your side is always right, or that the other side is always wrong. But one thing I sure as hell learned at the AEC is when someone is playing lawyer. That's why I quit. And that's why I can't take you seriously.

I've made my choice, using both my technical knowledge and my ideological instincts, and I figure its about 80-90% likely to be the correct and moral one. I wish all the decisions I've had to make in my life were that well defined up front and that straightforward.