Courtesy ofThe Mound of Sound (aka The Disaffected Lib); emphasis mine -
It should be a given that anthropogenic global warming is a question of science. It involves geology, hydrology, physics, math, biology, zoology, atmospherics, chemistry - all that stuff you probably hated in high school. It's a scientific question, plain and simple, albeit the question itself is complex and challenging. Ever since man stopped sharing caves with dinosaurs, you know - six thousand years ago, we have focused on separating wheat from chaff. This often involved a scientific technique - trial and error. Over centuries this sort of approach evolved into what we today call the "scientific method." I look into a question. I run a bunch of tests. I record results (data). From the data I draw conclusions, even theories sometimes. Then I present my findings, my genius to my adoring and worshipful colleagues. Now, to be taken seriously, I must also reveal my research, how I came to be such a genius. I must do this so that others can replicate my research and come up with their own data that will confirm or refute my conclusions. It's called "peer review." Consider it the opposite of bluffing.
The climate science community works on the scientific method. But what of the denialist community? If they're right, the easiest and surest avenue for them is also the scientific method. Take the research, take the supporting data and simply show where it's wrong. Blow holes in it. That's the easiest and surest way but only if they genuinely believe the science is wrong. If this really is a hoax it'll unravel like a three-dollar sweater. But they don't have any interest in the scientific method. No, they're happier with something remarkably akin to the "legal method."
This is also the reason why I can never associate with the right-wing, libertarian, or conservative movement or belief. I've never found them to really ever be grounded in any principal associated with facts, or evaluating any notion with the scientific method.
