On the validity of climate change denial

[nathanm]

Yet when it comes to coverage of global warming, we are trapped in the logic of a guerrilla insurgency. The climate scientists have to be right 100 per cent of the time, or their 0.01 per cent error becomes Glaciergate, and they are frauds. By contrast, the deniers only have to be right 0.01 per cent of the time for their narrative - See! The global warming story is falling apart! - to be reinforced by the media. It doesn't matter that their alternative theories are based on demonstrably false claims. Look at the Australian geologist Ian Plimer, whose denialism is built on the claim that volcanoes produce more CO2 than humans, even though the US Geological Survey has shown they produce 130 times less. Or Sunday Telegraph columnist Christopher Booker, who says the Arctic sea ice can't be retreating because each year it comes back a little... in winter.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-deniers--apologise-for-climategate-1965395.html

[Gaspar]

"I'm leaving"  --Tipper

[nathanm]

"I'm leaving"  --Tipper

You could take the issues seriously for once.