If the glove don't fit, you must acquit. Or not. Bill McKibben has a great Op-Ed comparing climate change deniers to the defense in the OJ Simpson case. It really seems like quite an apt analogy. Especially, like OJ's lawyers, the climate change deniers are doing disturbingly well in public opinion:
In his closing arguments, Cochran compared Fuhrman to Adolf Hitler
and called him "a genocidal racist, a perjurer, America's worst
nightmare and the personification of evil." His only real audience was
the jury, many of whom had good reason to dislike the Los Angeles
Police Department, but the team managed to instill considerable doubt
in lots of Americans tuning in on TV as well. That's what happens when
you spend week after week dwelling on the cracks in a case, no matter
how small they may be. They made convincing mountains from the
molehills they had to work with.
Similarly, the immense pile of evidence now proving the science
of global warming beyond any reasonable doubt is in some ways a great
boon for those who deny that the biggest problem we've ever faced is
actually a problem at all. If you have a three-page report, it won't be
overwhelming, but it's also unlikely to have many mistakes. Three
thousand pages (the length of the latest report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)? That pretty much guarantees
you'll get some things wrong.
It's good stuff. Read the whole thing.