The poles in the climate change debate always insist the other side is either stupid or motivated by funding. It's likely true in some cases but lots of policy issues have worked out even though highly paid people were against it. It can't be a constructive thing to throw a blanket over 50% of the society who will all need to get behind a policy decision, though.
Writing an op-ed in the LA Times, Michael D. Lemonick of Climate Central recognizes that as strong as the evidence for climate change is, hype - like capitalzing on local temperature events (we mean you, Associated Press, and you TIME magazine) - does more harm than good. For anyone to link the weird bitch known as Nature to one event (a heat wave!) but not another (Snowmageddon!) unless it can be attributed to virtually anything is silly. You might as well change the name of the field from Climate Science to Smurf (apologies if you are either too young or too old to remember Smurfs) because making climate change everything means climate change has always been around. That is not the way to get policy done, especially in a bad economy.
There is no need for hype because, as he writes, "the truth is scary enough."
Climate change science, not hype by Michael D. Lemonick
