That explains it.

So I read this article in the Wall Street Journal online (which I will graciously assume to be opinion) about the "anti-science" certitude on climate change. The author shares the story of the planet of Vulcan which was theorized to exist based on Newtonian physics and later disproven by using Einstein's theory of relativity. This anecdote from the annals of science history is supposed to illustrate that climate change is only a theory and could (totally) be disproven 100 years from now just like Vulcan was.
He also argues that because climatology as a discipline is only 170 years old, we can't predict stuff on such short history (even though we have --and use-- the ability to get a reliable historical model on temperature fluctuations and climate data from ice cores, sea floor cores, and old-growth forests).
Finally, he points out that calling people who deny that climate change is real "climate change deniers" is mean.


The reality is, 99% of all climate scientists agree that climate change is real and potentially catastrophic. Why would so many scientists agree? What do they gain by warning us of  possible doom? This was the one thing that I could never comprehend. I see all these conservatives denying the reality of climate change in the face of so much evidence. And their argument is that the "evidence" is self-serving. What? Thousands of scientists are talking about climate change to get grant money? Hundreds of "liberal" politicians are trying to pass legislation on emissions because their goal is not mitigating damage to our planet, but to "increase government control over the economy and the personal lives of citizens." What?