There is enough at stake to buy almost everybody's honesty. It's not a matter of one side being more honest than the other. The alarmist machine is fueled by the government. The denier machine is fueled by private industry. Many people trust government, but they forget that it was private industry and free enterprise which made this country great, not some government program.

Well, the "climate denial machine" has its basis in lies, while the "alarmist machine" has its basis in science.

Still, I don't think people should try to oversell anthropogenic climate change--it's scary enough on its own without needing to use scare tactics. Individual short period weather events should not be blamed on it--but I think those that are doing that are primarily NOT scientists.

The people with the "denial machine" are by and large lying scum and those that don't know enough science to know better.

One "machine" has scientific evidence, such as global warming is happening

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010...

And we are causing it

http://c1planetsavecom.wpengine.netdna-c...

And that the ten warmest years in the instrumental record are 2010, 2005, 2009, 2007, 2002, 1998, 2006, 2003, 2013 and 2012.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs...

The other side has cherry picked data and ad homs, such as



edit



If by better, you mean more honest, "warmers" win hands-down.

Does anyone actually take what Joanne Nova says seriously???

She has a minor microbiology degree & her real name is Joanne Codling (she adopted the name "Nova" to appeal to children in a business she had)

She runs a denier website funded by the Heartland Institute - with her partner , David Evans , a self proclaimed brilliant rocket scientist (sadly NASA overlooked the opportunity to employ him but he gets support also from Heartland Institute)

I think its called crank magnetism

The skeptic side deals with reality and the alarmist side deals in scare tactics by predicting future catastrophes. Money seems to play a role in both sides though.

I think the credits say all: one is produced by "a self-taught, unfunded scientist (and a few friends) determined not to let them get away with it" while the other is a slightly modified reprint from a peer-reviewed research paper.

Can you guess which is which?

I just do not understand the media's part in this, isn't the free press to be about truth and exposing conspiracy and corruption, how media can blindly align themselves to one political side or another, and support that side no matter what.

The media's duty is to honestly inform the public, on what is happening in this world of ours and not exaggerate or put their own slant on it.

It's all about the money. If the government stopped funding this, even the believers would be doing other jobs.

It is a good demonstration, IMO, that it is more about politics than it is about science. You certainly don't have anything like this regarding the crystallization of sulfates, well.. not that I have noticed anyway.

The alarmist machine is much better funded.

Here are the two graphics I think represent each:

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/artwork/mudslinger-map/climate-scare-machine-800.gif

http://jcmooreonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Oxford-figure-reprinted-revised.jpg

The one difference I see is that the taxpayer is in one machine and not the other.

Anything else? Better graphs? Does everything have a "machine"?

one lies