Sure, to a degree. And if scientists were shown to be telling the porkies the denial camp are, then you'd have a case.
But the science isn't telling porkies and the denial camp is. That's the deed. And the motive comes from the fossil fuel industry who are funding these "think tanks" and bloggers; which think tanks and bloggers publish no science.
If you are getting your evidence from the news cycle you aren't studying the science or the arguments against the science. You aren't on the fence, if that's the case. You are just uninformed. Which is understandable; it's complex detailed stuff. But if you are taking the side of the less manipulative, then you should be with the science. They are doing the same thing they've done for decades. Research and publish and be subject to peer review and criticism and further research that may support or challenge their findings. They have done this for over 100 years in the case of atmospheric physics and for over fourty years in the case of international concerted study into the impact of greenhouse gasses, and particularly since 1988 when the IPCC was founded to help communicate the science's concerns to international governments. The fossil fuel industry have published no science, but they are telling a lot of manipulative stories. And funding a lot of politicians to ignore the science. It's clear who is being manipulative.
For me that is largely by and by. I've looked at the science and the fraudulent arguments against the science. The arguments against the science are nakedly false and, in many cases laughably biased, blinkered and obviously deceptive.
