The deniers think climate science is crap. They are largely coming from outside the scientific community. But, that, in itself does not make their arguments invalid. Well, actually, sorta, but, you know what I mean. There could be some kind of group-think and peer pressure in the scientific community to tow the party line. Skepticism is a good thing, and the discourse around climate change doesn't really allow for a lot of dissent So how is one to sort through this mess of competing claims?
Gavin Schmidt, a climatologist at NASA, argues that skepticism is good, but informed skepticism. He's interviewed on PBS's Need to Know - Climate Desk Podcast Skepticism vs. denial about climate change (11 mins). It's a nice discussion and worth the eleven minutes' investment. Schmidt recommends: that one not to take any scientist's or denier's word for it, but rather look to the consensus of the scientific academies. Individually, scientists may have pet motives, but when vetted and filtered through a scientific academy the truth will out, due to the way that science works.
The Climate Desk is an interesting project, featured regularly on PBS Need to Know. They describe themselves comme ca:
The Climate Desk is a journalistic collaboration dedicated to exploring the impact - human, environmental, economic, political - of a changing climate. Partners included The Atlantic, The Center for Investigative Reporting, Grist, Mother Jones, Slate, Wired and PBS's Need to Know. Our podcast is hosted by Need to Know's Alison Stewart and features experts on the issue.