The scientific establishment has faced a bit of a dilemma re...

The scientific establishment has faced a bit of a dilemma re climate science in recent decades. On the one hand, climate denialism was an easy ticket for obscure, z-list, scientists to get instant funding and fame, and it was used as such many many times over, which in and of itself represented a corruption of science.

On the other hand, by squelching all dissent to the manmade climate change hypothesis, whilst allowing supporting articles to be published, the gatekeepers of the scientific establishment have essentially sacrificed most of their credibility on the issue.

I'm a Mensan and I've been an environmentalist since the late 80s, and I'm about as independent-minded as is possible to be, and I've looked into climate change pretty extensively, including looking at the denialist arguments in depth. The conclusion I've reached is that while there is scope to reasonably doubt the manmade climate change hypothesis, the probabilities are pretty overwhelmingly in favour of it. Normal scientific consensus requires 95% confidence, and I think that level has been very comfortably exceeded many years ago, which essentially means that denialists now need to come up with compelling evidence against manmade climate change as opposed to taking a "muddy the waters" approach which is what they generally do.