Newsweaker

I put up a post about how Newsweek was sliming critics of global warming when it noted, on its cover, that they're "well-funded," and all that implies. (I'm not even sure if it's true, by the way.) I made two points--that these skeptics believe what they're saying, and that there's actually more money and glory on the other side.

Let me reply to a comment I received.

Points 1 & 2 are equally applicable to proponents of intelligent design, safety of smoking and even some holocaust-deniers (as well as to many other causes and beliefs) so I am not sure that shows anything. Since most persons lack the basic knowledge and familiarity to independently analyze science or other data underlying the hypothesis, we are left to interpret it through lenses that we can understand

You seem to be arguing about what's true or not, and which side to believe, which wasn't my point.

I'm simply saying that Newsweek is making a nasty (and irrelevant) charge when it implies that the scientists who speak out against global warming (or facets of it) are not sincere--that they're paid-for mouthpieces. This not only isn't true--they mean what they say--but, if Newsweek honestly wants to go down this path, I bet they'd find there's more pressure on scientists to toe the line, and more money to be had if they do.

- the qualifications of the speakers (though this is not much less confusing)

When you have highly imperfect information, this is generally worth looking at. And while Holocaust deniers and creationists and 9/11 truthers (and even less obvious cases, such as doctors giving sociological advice) are often acting outside their area of expertise, I don't think this is the case with many of the scientists Newsweek is attacking. (If you think they're referring to non-scientists, then you'd have to admit there are a lot more of those speaking out in favor of the global warming hypotheses.)

and the reputation for truthfulness (ideologues being less believable than others)

This is dangerous ground for you, since environmentalism is a highly emotional topic for millions and there is a huge superstructure of those (some paid, some free-lance) who regularly exaggerate threats. In fact, they've cried wolf so many times, that any claim by environmentalist groups should probably be treated with a little extra skepticism, which makes it harder for their serious claims to get through.

who pays and who benefits from research results,

That was why I made the point that there's a lot more money and benefits on the side of believing in global warming than being skeptical of it.

Imagine you're a religious person and you note all these new books out on atheism. If you want to attack the arguments on their merits, that's fine, but if you just want to condemn the arguments because you believe the authors did it for all that big atheist money (even if they were funded by some atheist foundation) you'd not only be making a cheap argument, you'd be avoiding the real one.

and what we can observe through our own talents (OK "common sense"). I do call recall Rachel Carson being denounced as a wacko- there is a history of environmental concerns being pooh-poohed by interests that had something to lose from environmental policies

It is strange that you've chosen to make your stand with Rachel Carson, since she got a lot of very basic things wrong and her critics got them right. To this day, her influence has people vastly overstating the dangers of synthetic chemicals. (Some or her present-day critics go so far as to say that millions have died because her followers supported DDT bans.)