VincentRJ

I'm not sure it's mainly on the deniers' side, unless you are combining the term 'denial' with 'skepticism'. Skepticism, perhaps due to a sense of the irrationality of an argument, or the presence of counteracting evidence which casts doubt on the truth of an argument, is the most fundamental aspect of scientific enquiry. Without it, there would be no scientific progress. The behaviour of certain scientists who were earning a living in the tobacco industry, is an illuminating example of the bias that can result when earning a living might be in conflict with a 'potential' scientific truth which is still in the process of investigation, and which could destroy one's career if eventually proven to be correct. The choice would be to either resign immediately and look for another job, perhaps despite having an expensive mortgage to pay on a house and having a wife and 5 young children to support, or to continue working in the tobacco industry and attempt to downplay the significance of smoking on lung cancer, hoping that the evidence for a significant risk will never become conclusive. However, this problem is faced by many scientists in various industries, including the IPCC. Which is more important, complete scientific integrity and honesty, or earning a living?