The problem here is that
- there has never been any real contention about Earth's mean temperature changing
- the issue of causation is highly contentious
- the "consensus" position that atmospheric carbon dioxide is a major driver of global mean temperature is not supported by science, and
- the notion that tweaking a couple of minor variables -- specifically and principally carbon dioxide emission from fossil fuel use -- will have significant predictable effect on global climate is patently wrong.
All that's left to understand is why people continue to offer differing perspectives on climate change: i.e. why do people perist with the myth.
Those who refute Milloy's points above tend to be in three groups:
- those who are ideologically pre-disposed to see humanity as a "cancer on the planet" and, thus, accept human causation of global warming as axiomatic and pillory any who question its veracity
- those who benefit individually and institutionally from promotion of "the consensus" and, thus, use their positions of presumed authority to intimidate and belittle those who are not part of that consensus, and
- those who use the presumption of a scientific "consensus" as added justification for the "correct" morally accepted stance of ideological environmentalism and, thus, advocate the necessity for political action now (Kyoto, promotion of wind power, etc.) even though such actions have little evidence to indicate their efficacy.
And then, of course, we have the media. But that's a whole other post.