My sentiment mirrors Colin's: climate change skeptics have gone from mildly irritating to painfully obnoxious. In the beginning stages of data collection and analysis, it could be understandable why some, even scientists, would be hesitant to fully accept such a monolithic concept as global climate change, which has such apocalyptic predictions and effects that most logical human beings would look for an alternate answer. The time for questioning, however, has well passed, and with solid data supporting climate change as a result of increased carbon dioxide levels, any refutation of this phenomena is warranted, and reeks of an ulterior motive. Although I couldn't locate any foul play on the Friends of Science site, it seemed impossible that the organization was run by legitimate scientists, working without an agenda or hidden intentions.

That said, the biting sarcasm layered throughout the Grist article highlighted the fact that you just cannot argue with climate change skeptics. Grist, which confronts environmental news with a humorous tone, set up an elaborate, rational, logical outline for answering the qualms and concerns of the Ostriches, my new term for those who prefer to hide their head in the sand while the Earth is quickly warming. The irony is that these cynics don't respond to this left-brained thinking, and it is futile to confront the unabashed denial with cold, hard facts. The skepticism is political and value based, often steeped in fear, or some vague notion that environmentalism is killing the "American Way" or profit-driven capitalism. What is most difficult to understand about climate change skeptics is their argument that the environmental is a left-wing conspiracy. What would be our motives? Why would we create a disaster scenario for no reason? Perhaps the most effective mode of reasoning would be to persuade cynics that environmentalists have nothing to gain from the movement, and that we, along with the rest of the world, would be better off it climate change weren't happening.