Well, it could be that the writers of SciAm are part of the global conspiracy to deprive Americans of their money and liberty. Or it could be that they actually understand the science in their own field better than politicos and scientists from outside their field - and it could be that companies that depend on carbon fuel, similar to tobacco companies back in the 50s, realize that they don't have to win this argument - all they have to do is create sufficient doubt. This would explain why most of the scholarly papers purporting to refute AGW originate with groups like CEI, AEI, Cato Inst, among others - which are funded by Heritage Foundation and Heartland Inst which is funded by big oil (among other things).

http://www.edf.org/documents/3943_paidskeptics.pdf

Here's a new word that I'd like to see discussed: agnatology.

The scientists are fighting a losing battle. People demand an unreasonable amount of evidence from them, but none - absolutely none it seems for the false rumors, exaggerations, and innuendo - that they picked up and pass on in office banter ... er ... arrive through their own insightful reasoning from their carefully collected data.

Really. I'd like to see "agnatology" discussed - and that term the other fellow brought up "watermelon" ... and maybe a few others like "astroturfing."