There may be a very good reason for some Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) proponents’ censorial, bullying attitude focused on belittling and silencing all sorts of skeptical (and non-skeptical) voices, with disingenuous remarks about the debate being “over”.
It is the same reason that forces some teenage idiots to push younger children around. Simply put, it’s a matter of insecurity.
To this day, AGWers have nothing to show. One doesn’t need to be financed by Exxon or a hardened neocon: just a good dose of honesty with oneself is enough to understand that, in the words of Andrew C. Revkin of The New York Times, “the dangerous aspects of human-forced climate disruption [are not] soon, salient [or] certain“.
The fabled IPCC reports thread tentatively on the matter of present evidence of global warming, with the AR4 dedicating to it just a single chapter, mostly focused on listing changes that are “compatible” with global warming. The temperature readings are still in ranges that can be easily reverted by relatively modest volcanic eruptions, and everybody admits that even decadal trends do depend on what reference values are used.
There is no modeller predicting disasters at the current level of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere (385ppmv), as shown by the fact that negotiations aim to fix an upper limit of 450ppmv (17% higher) with the underlying aim to avoid 550pmv (43% higher).
Climate Change / Global Warming Attribution (attribution of changes and/or warming to human activities, that is) is still up in the air (there is a whole session “Detection and Attribution: State of Play in 2009“, at the International Scientific Congress on Climate Science in Copenhagen, March 10-12 2009) . Even RealClimate cannot fail to express doubts on much-publicized recent attribution papers.
Anthropogenic Global Warming / Climate Change per se are _not_ self-evident facts of the moment. Whoever claims otherwise, they are perpetuating the Big Lie of AGW.
Theirs is not Science, but a falsification of it.
The debate that should be going on at the moment, and the point around which decisions should be made, is on the possibility that for some reason, we today are seeding the seeds of AGW in the future.
But that issue is very much cloudied by hysterical, anti-scientific reports and claims about present-day AGW. And that risks to impede the discovery and implementation of proper responses to the AGW threat, rather than patched-up farces such as the Kyoto Protocol.
Tough love indeed some environmentalists have for the environment. A few more cries purportedly to defend it, and they may as well kill it themselves altogether.