For people confused by the skillful doublespeak about “consensus” and “peer review” this is an excellent thoughtful review of what is real and what is not. Scientists are largely honest, ethical, and hardworking; what they seek to understand is how things work. The political and industrial entities that don’t like the conclusion have labored with might and main to provide plausible counternarratives that look just the same.
Karl Rove comes to mind. Firstly, borrowed from a comment by Victor Venema at AndThenTheresPhysics:
A variant of Karl Rove strategy #3. Claim your opponents strengths.
Karl Rove strategy #3: Accuse your opponent of your own weakness
Someone who does not have to time to figure things out, only see two groups making the same claim. A good strategy if you find the truth irrelevant.
Whether it applies to us, is something we need to figure out ourselves. What the mitigation sceptics say about it or themselves is not informative.
While I’m on Rove, it might be useful to move slightly sideways to remind people of his many detours from the truth, as this kind of thing is having considerable success: