'Restoring a balance' in climate debate

What I was doing was turning environmentalists' own argument against them. I think we can all remember, in the 1990s, that they were jumping up and down saying that this was the hottest decade since records began and that it proved their global warming argument.

Yet, when I said that the science has proved over the last decade that the world's temperature has levelled off and cooled slightly they say it's 'a weather fluctuation'. This is very much a case of heads they win, tails I lose. It shows very clearly the two faces that environmentalists have by manipulating, or cherry-picking, science to fit their ideology.

Reuters: US Playing Spoilsport at International Climate Negotiations?

Just as it seemed that differences over contentious issues regarding the next climate treaty were ironing out and all parties moving ahead with a common agenda, the developed countries, US in particular, threatened to stall negotiations until developing countries pledge equal emission reduction measures.
...
The views presented in the above article are author's personal views and do not represent those of TERI/TERI University where the author is currently pursuing a Master's degree.

TERI NA - Home

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, under the chairmanship of Dr. R K Pachauri, wins Nobel Peace Prize for 2007. IPCC shares the honour with former Vice President Al Gore. Dr Pachauri is President of TERI North America and Director General of TERI India.

Predictions for 'The Next Hundred Years'

He barely mentions the risks associated with climate change.

Science and hidden bias - Crunchy Con

In this context, I mentioned to Dr. K. that we journalists -- myself included -- have a strong bias toward believing in the authority of science, and of scientists, in large part because we are scientifically illiterate ourselves, and we trust that scientists are not spinning us. Dr. K. said that's a big mistake, and that I would be startled to learn how much the allegedly pure and unbiased realm of research and applied science is guided by politics and money. He said that he has big problems with predominant global warming theories, because in his opinion, the science simply isn't there to support what's being claimed. He digressed into a brief explanation for why he remains skeptical. I told him that I found that interesting, because I, like almost every other journalist I know, assumes that the overwhelming scientific consensus on the cause of climate change is true.