A soothing sort of sceptic rather than a contankerous one

An interesting post on communication – the difference between being a sceptic and an AGW true believer, on the one hand, and how each side shouts but fails to persuade. Neither side listens to the other – should the language be calmer, it is asked at http://scottishsceptic.wordpress.com/2011/10/25/the-best-social-critique… and is something to think about. The bit he misses out though is not that sceptics are more intuitive than the other side but they are primarily older – middle aged and above. They've seen these frantic hypes before – and watched them collapse. It may be that the other side are more prone to peer pressure and have a deeper angst as far as 'belonging' is concerned, and fairly unhappy to step out into the limelight in the direct glare of their contemporaries. Better to trust than to kick the boat, and better to stay quiet when one is not sure. In that respect an opinionated sceptic might just take the biscuit – and send them skurrying back to the warm glow of being one of the crowd. Truth is, sceptics suspect global warming is a farce and that co2 is highly overrated as a warming trace gas – but the actual solid evidence they require is not yet available. It is a case of one opinion countering another opinion – but what instils the intransigence in the doubters is that the other side claim their position  is unnassailable and the world is on track to warm up – in an alarming fashion. Truth is, we don't know – nobody. Anyone that says it will is guilty of fabrication and scientists that say so will be long retired before we know one way or the other. I always think that most of the commenters on the various sceptic blogs are either unemployed, part time employed, or retired, as the same names pop up on different blogs. Possibly their other half hogs the television screen during the evening so they are inclined to switch on their computer. Either that or they've read all the books in the local library.