Understanding what is sadly obvious... http://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2014/10/28/the-varieties-of-denialism/
Very good, if depressing, article. Well worth reading especially by any "skeptics" in our midst. I agree with Hume's contention that the label of "skeptic" is only properly applicable to those who are diligently inquiring into and informing themselves about the evidence. Consequently, with respect to climate change, the categories of deniers and skeptics are now mutually exclusive. The two remaining categories are those who are deniers and those who have not yet sufficiently inquired into the evidence to express an informed (i.e., skeptical) opinion. In my view the last climate scientist who had properly met the standard of inquiry to be considered as sceptic was Professor Richard Muller, who had challenged the scientific consensus on man-made climate and undertook a massive research project to prove that man-made emissions were not the source of climate change, with the following results: See: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/op...anted=all&_r=0
Excellent article in the OP; good read. Regarding the "freedom of press" point discussed in a parallel thread, the author states unequivocally:
From your appreciated link: " (Yes, I’m talking about “tone,” among other things. We are educators, so we ought to know that nobody ever responds positively to being told that they are idiots or ignoramuses.)"