To be fair... that statement does work for both sides of the fence. A lot of people perpetuate something that they heard one scientist say one time even if that scientist himself later clarified what he meant. There are lots of points of misinformation on the pro and con side of the global climate change discussions. That right there is a misstep... because the inference is that any scientist who disagrees is not "legitimate". Remember those commercials that said 9 out of 10 dentists recommend Crest? So... does that mean the 10th Dentist is not qualified? No... rather it means he found something else to recommend likely, and we have lots of brands of toothpaste that work quite well. So... taking a scientist that is con towards man-made climate change and inferring that he is not part of the legitimate scientific community is a dangerous thing. True... and also true that the sample size of actual temperature measures is rather small... and a lot of conjecture is being used to extrapolate past temperature models. Even with that, though, the scientific community recognizes lots of climate shift long before the industrial revolution... so it is quite arguable that a great many things influence the climate more than we do. And that is one reason why people should not be going around exclaiming it as proven fact. This is an example of the misquoting you talked about earlier... It doesn't mean we can't make intelligent guesses and propose things that are good for the environment regardless of whether we are responsible for the change... but it does mean we shouldn't present things as known facts that are not. On the actual climate change itself... I have not been fully convinced that they have measured a global temperature change... and even if so, their claim is a tenth of a degree in some places I've read... which seems like a bit of a stretch to think that they have that accurate with all the potential to make errors along the way of a study. That said... if they can prove a recent temperature rise... they can't prove it is man-made... and more to the point, they can't prove it is specific to any one activity of man. So what we mostly end up with are some people and businesses who would profit financially from the new business of "going green" whether or not it actually helps or changes the climate... and then 10+ years from now we will still be having the discussion about some other thing. That's invoking the theory of proving a negative. It is much easier to prove A causes B than to prove A doesn't cause B. If you do A, and B happens... then you have proven A causes B. (obviously you need to run the test a few times to be conclusive). However... if you do A, and B doesn't happen... you haven't proven that A doesn't cause B... you've just proven that it doesn't cause it all the time. I can punch the wall and not leave a mark on my hand. That doesn't prove that punching the wall can't hurt you.