Actually, science is characterized largely by an absence of black and white thinking. Speaking as a theoretical physicist, I can assure you that those of us in science will argue ad naseum about whatever detail of a theory you want. It is this precise mechanism that allows us to produce theories which are incredibly well-tested.
Where science tends not to see shades of gray is in defending its work from politically-motivated attacks. One might as well accuse biologists of being "black/white" on evolution when defending against entirely insubstantial attacks from creationists. Creationists aren't interested, say, in whether it's genes or species that are evolving, but only in whether they can sow enough distrust of science to get into the public discourse. Similarly, climate denialists don't really care about specific problems with climate models as much as they do with undermining how science is perceived.
Thus, denialists don't see the actual teeming debate within science over the specifics over how AGW takes form, where real climate skeptics point out problems that are then addressed by the rest of the community. To a denialist, it probably seems as if the world is simply screaming "no" at them over and over again, but that doesn't mean there's not a rich world within the science that they denigrate.
Im not sure that is the case for controversial theories. Just take a look at the differing opinions on quantum theory (especially the argument over light quanta) and atomic structure in the past. That was pretty black/white for many years (by which I mean you had scientists very staunchly on both sides of the theories).
This black/white scenario is ripe for corruption by a (political) third party. They can play the two off against each other and ultimately try to present one as right or wrong.
Going back to the specific quote:
It seems to me that if one were to pick a population to corrupt, one would pick the intellectually lazy majority
As I read it DaniFong is saying that the general populace is being corrupted by denialists (agreed, as it happens). He uses this as a(n abstract) proof that non-denialist climate change science is accurate and scientists are not corrupted by political motives etc.
My argument is that firstly this is a tautology (because both could be true) and actually that both are true.
We've seen some politically motivated science hit the news even over the last month or so. Just as much it is clear that the denialists are trying to sway populists to their opinion through a combination of pseudo-science and (more often) by undermining the science (as you mention). Arguing that only one exists doesn't really work any more.
I think that if you want to hold an opinion on this you, sadly, have to go and do some realistic research of your own into the topics. It's no longer safe to trust politicians, activists (both for/against) or news agencies (and, yes, some scientists).
As an aside: this whole debate amuses me because as I observe it seems incredibly black/white for everyone involved. People are getting so hung up on whether we have an effect on climate or GW that it completely disconnects from the actual main issues. It seems often like there is a minority of people actually trying to do something sensible while the rest bicker of (albeit very important) meta-issues.
I wouldn't say that scientists are uncorrupted or incorruptible, but it happens in degrees!
Actually, I think that the climate science indicates more that we're likely to move out of a regime of the easily predictable, based on empirical data. I think that the science shows that there's a rather likely possibility of severe climate change, though I don't put much faith in the specific effects.
The trouble is that our models can't simulate the response of the biospheres or of the human beings living in them. These are possibly the most important feedback effects -- certainly they are the ones we should be most interested in, if we want to imagine how climate change might effect life, but they are also incredibly difficult to model, since the responses usually can't be figured out from first principles. (Apparently some of our best data on the topic comes from a project involving giant heat lamps blasting on a microclimate. People thought it was crazy but it's our only decent source of direct data.)
Climate denialists rarely get to this level. Some claim climate change isn't happening, some claim we're not responsible, and some deny either the predicted effects or how bad they'll be. However, as I argue in my essay on Climate Change Skeptics (http://daniellefong.com/2009/10/11/climate-change-skeptics/) we should have a much higher standard of proof for the absence of severe effects and the absence of harm before we make such drastic changes to the Earth's atmosphere, biosphere, and primary cooling mechanism.
Incidentally, CO2 based climate change is only one part of it. (for example, even take a look at N2O and CH4 (methane) concentrations over time http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climat...http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climat...) There are hardly any temperate rainforests left, the coral reefs are dying, one quarter of the Earth's photosynthesis is in our food chain, and 90% is in anthropogenic bioemes: ecologies that human forces have largely shaped, we are depleting mineral resources and aquifers much larger than they are replenished or found, we fix more nitrogen than all other life combined, and the mass extinctions of the past have largely been driven by life-based changes to the atmosphere (see this TED talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/peter_ward_on_mass_extinctions.html).
> I wouldn't say that scientists are uncorrupted or incorruptible, but it happens in degrees!
We're in agreement there. Indeed I suspect a lot of it is scientists producing their work in good faith with a serious commitment to their field and once the data leaves the "lab" (as it were) third parties are queued up to pull out of context quotes and make a story from it.
As it happens I think your stood at the "worst case" extreme (based on what your saying). I'm currently thinking, from the data I have read, there is both plenty of time to react and the impact is going to be nowhere near as dramatic as some people like to suggest :)
Which brings me to:
we should have a much higher standard of proof for the absence of severe effects and the absence of harm before we make such drastic changes to the Earth's atmosphere, biosphere, and primary cooling mechanism.
I think this is where we mostly disagree. While clearly we should approach this from the perspective of "we need to make changes and assume that climate change will have an impact on our future" I think ignoring the scientific process to such an extreme like your suggesting undermines the entire issue.
There is no requirement to be dramatic about any of this. Indeed it does a lot more harm than good to be so. We have the makings of a problem facing us - a problem we really have inly just begun to assess and face. The solution requires calm, level headedness and common sense.
Example: I've written several times to my MP to suggest he proposes a private members bill to add new building regulation requirements for new build houses. These would require Solar heating and/or solar energy cells to be added to every new build. The added cost of a build is negligible - but I think the cumulative impact would be as dramatic as any "green policy" currently being proposed.
These kinds of things make sense not only on a global scale but on an individual one too: and that is the sort of rational approach that is needed in the case of climate change.
(I also want to see studies into whether our habitat can and will adapt to a changed climate; I feel this is a much under explored area and is worth considering as potential solution. If we can mitigate things to bring about an adaption to world ecosystems that restores balance that would be a neat and subtle solution)
In which ways are my suggestions extreme? I don't mean to put you on the spot: I just actually don't know what you perceive extreme in what I'm suggesting.
Where science tends not to see shades of gray is in defending its work from politically-motivated attacks. One might as well accuse biologists of being "black/white" on evolution when defending against entirely insubstantial attacks from creationists. Creationists aren't interested, say, in whether it's genes or species that are evolving, but only in whether they can sow enough distrust of science to get into the public discourse. Similarly, climate denialists don't really care about specific problems with climate models as much as they do with undermining how science is perceived.
Thus, denialists don't see the actual teeming debate within science over the specifics over how AGW takes form, where real climate skeptics point out problems that are then addressed by the rest of the community. To a denialist, it probably seems as if the world is simply screaming "no" at them over and over again, but that doesn't mean there's not a rich world within the science that they denigrate.