Gail at Pigs Will Fly wrote a great post about Party Politics And Common Climate/Carbon Misunderstandings. The first comment said:
Please, how about an objective article on climate change, where both sides of the argument are proposed. This article is obviously written by a pro climate change theorist, and is dismissive of thousands of scientists world wide who do not agree with this hypothesis. I am sure that if a scientist so wished, he could “prove” that the earth is flat. So please, give both sides of the story, we are not morons.
I like his analogy of the earth is flat. Would he expect us to give both sides of the “debate” about whether or not the earth is flat? Of course not. Likewise, there is a clear scientific consensus that climate change is happening, that it is a big problem and that humans are a major cause. The two-sides of the debate lies around the edges. How quickly will the effects be felt? How big will the changes be? What is the best way to tackle it?
I don’t know how we can have rational discussion when so many climate deniers do not appear to be willing (or able) to accept scientific evidence, change the topic to the politics of how to address climate change and whether or not we can afford it (which are legitimate issues for discuss but not if we are discussing the science of climate change), claim there is a conspiracy, or rely of evidence that has been discredited. (For a further info you could have a look at speech by Clive Hamilton “Climate denial versus climate science“.