Your post exemplifies the problems I'm talking about. It is extremely insulting to the scientists doing the work. Of the many people I work with, none are "sticking to dogma" in their scientific work. All are just reporting what they find.
Many of those in things like climatology or ecology claim that most of their most vocal opponents only have religious reasons for opposing them. From my experiences on FR (and other places, unfortunately, their claims seem correct.)
None of the scientis I know support the (defunct, if we are lucky) Kyoto protocols either. They point out that the Kyoto portocols actually make things worse.
It's a nasty dilemma. The (pseudo-)scientists behind the enviro movement are as honest and well-educated as Duane Gish or Hovind, or any other creationist ripoff artist you care to name, and at least as cynical.
Better science isn't going to slow then down, much less stop them. They'll just lie some more to get more power.
Better science will only convince those with a good science education; but we're not the problem. It's the miseducated, innumerate that are the problem. I don't know how to convince them of anything scientific.
Doc, you've been on enough crevo threads to see where I'm coming from.
Crichton has a point, the followers are a lot like religious people; the pseudo-scientists who are leading them know how to exploit this innate human drive.
And if they don't, the lawyers and H*l*r**s and G*r*s behind them sure do...
How do you convince someone that their faith is misplaced and they should convert to another one? My experience, it's nearly impossible.
(I'm gonna talk myself into a major depression if I'm not careful..)