Warren Pearce at The Guardian argues that pro-/anti-science regarding climate change is too simplistic:
Skeptics "cannot simply be written off as anti-science or conspiracy theorists (although I am sure one or two may fall into that category). Rather, they see themselves as upholding the standards of what they'd call "real science"."
Well, do they? Or do they know just enough science to promote fear and doubt, the way Discovery Institute does about biology?
Are climate sceptics the real champions of the scientific method?
