Parent is just quoting buzzwords, but I can't say that he's altogether wrong: the reason this is a story has nothing to do with science, or any desire to find the truth. It's a clash where each side has already decided that it's Right based almost exclusively on political lines in the sand. Hacker News is pretty much one of the only places on the net where a significant proportion of posters have not already decided the issue for sure.

For my part, and I am educated in the sciences (though not environmental ones, to the extent they can be considered "science"), I have no freaking idea what the true state of affairs is, and I doubt that anyone has much valid knowledge in this area. I don't trust any of the data that I see because a) historical inference is really, really difficult, and I'm very unimpressed by how it's been done, and b) there's so much incentive on each side to mangle the data to fit the conclusion. I don't have any faith in the environmental researchers to fairly report what the data tells them, but I'm just as skeptical about the bias of people arguing against them, aligned as they tend to be with the idiots and organizations that fight so hard against evolution.

Just to be clear, I absolutely believe that there are valid theoretical reasons to consider the possibility of (human caused) global warming; the models are more than enough to show that it's a real possibility. It's only the claim that it's already been observed (and that it's significant, reversible, etc.) that I'm skeptical about.

However, I think that strategically speaking, the environmentalism movement's increased focus on global warming is a big mistake because it gives anti-environmentalists a fixed target to nibble away at, and they're doing a pretty good job of causing doubt. Wasn't it obvious enough that spewing pollutants into the air is bad? Why not focus on that, like everyone used to? Instead, the environmentalists have taken on the burden of proving that global warming is man-made, catastrophic, and reversible; until then, the burden was on the anti-environmentalists to prove that it was safe to pollute as much as they wanted, which was pretty much an impossible task.

I worry that far more important environmental concerns than carbon output are being ignored because of the excessive focus on global warming, and this shift in attention could be truly catastrophic.

Very well said. I commented elsewhere that the politicization is also likely the reason for the scientists doing dubious things in the first place - having their life's work under constant attack by reactionary nutjobs probably left them feeling a bit cornered, and so they made the mistake of viewing all criticism as nutjob criticism.

It's true that we've become obsessively focused on global warming as of late, although I would place at least as much blame on the media for that. In the past couple years, though, some groups have been doing a better job of saying "BTW clean energy will also create jobs and improve our national security." The WE campaign is one such example.