In a not-to-be-missed piece at the LA Times op-ed section, Naomi Oreskes talks about the burden of proof and climate change. This is an important aspect of the situation and Oreskes frames it very nicely – people misconstrue the role of scientists as “prosecution” and not as “jury”.
The comment section there is also worth a look. It is not one-sided, but even so it is wholly useless. We desperately need a way for informed comment to get more prominence than uninformed comment. Doing this without imposing the prejudices of a particular editor or set of editors makes the prospect seem difficult.