Mack, yes your analogy works well as I happen to be in that field myself and agree that informed consent is VERY difficult.
I certainly don't like the sort of fringe disagreement of pseudoscience. Frankly alot of rubbish need not be responded to by the scientific community. However
1. I don't think the sceptics are necessary nuts in this case :) - thats not to say they are right.
2. There are actually very few scientific topics which joe public will engage with and this happens to be one of them (because it stands to affect everyone), sceptic rational thinking is a bit of a hobby horse of mine and there does appear to be two sides here who are "playing by the rules" here.
I for one will be happy to look into this further.
It is a matter of keeping up with the debate rather than coming up with conclusions such as "global warming is a flat out lie", that sort of certaincy when the majority of the scientific community disagrees say more about the person than the topic.
