climate scepticism akin to creationism?

But which side of the climate debate is really closer to creationism?

Which side has a pre-determined “cause” that must be defended at all costs?
Which side suppresses inconvenient data that doesn’t fit the cause?
Which side attacks heretics that dare challenge the cause?
Which side takes scientific findings and shoehorns them into the results it needs to support the cause?
Which side hides uncertainties in order to prevent the cause from being diluted?
Which side tries to stifle debate in order to protect the cause?
Which side has armies of paid organisations the spread “the word”? Think all the Green-bankrolled blogs and websites
Which side believes that the world will end unless the cause is blindly worshipped? Eco-Fascists lol

On the other hand, however:

Which side champions impartial, free-thinking scientific enquiry?
Which side isn’t beholden to any “cause”?
Which side welcomes all data, whether inconvenient or otherwise, to increase understanding?
Which side welcomes debate, since, again, it leads to greater understanding?

more here

http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/