There are two kinds of people on the issue: those who are certain of their position, and those who say they're not conclusively convinced one way or the other. "Those who are certain" are far louder and more idiotic on both sides. This headline is an example.

It's interesting that people on the sky-is-falling side of climate change feel that science is unassailable -- at least by the common man. Paid professionals make consensus decisions, and the rest of us should sit down and be quiet.

I have no idea what man's involvement with climate change is, or what the moral ramifications are (I doubt much, but I'm willing to listen) But I think I know what science is supposed to be: provisional, tentative, and falsifiable. And it's not being treated this way. To me that's why this issue is at the top of my list of cultural things to complain/argue about. It's destroying the essence of what science really means.

It's called the search for "corroborative evidence", where the latter is an oxymoron. Labels a non-scientist like nothing else, although we scientists catch ourselves doing that mistake just about every day.