The warmist blogosphere is currently lamenting the editing process of the ABC in regards to their recent climate program. John Cook at Skeptical Science has some of this missing footage, in which Naomi Oreskes apparently “deconstructs Nick Minchin’s climate denial”.
I was expecting some smoking gun example of scientific evidence or at least a refutation of some specific points raised by Minchin. Instead, she does what she is known for, smearing skeptics by questioning their motivations. The only point she mentions the science is the “overwhelming…indisputable” evidence of which she does not elaborate. She even suggests that to question it is equivalent to questioning the role of plate tectonic in earthquakes. No hard scientific arguments.
With some exceptions, the commenters at SkS can’t seem to understand the futility of this point, so I’ll lay it out. Both sides can question the political and financial motivations of the other side all day. Where the debate needs to focus on is the science and the data. An attempt at a psychoanalysis does not count as “deconstructing” the opposing position and it is these kind of tactics from the warming crowd that make people skeptical in the first place.