In the past month's hubbub over East Anglia's climate science emails, the idea has taken root that science has two camps. Recent polls show that many Americans hold this idea, that climate science is greatly unsettled between warring camps of scientists, the Believers and the Skeptics. Nothing could be further from the truth. All good scientists are all on the same side, they are all pursuing knowledge, and by training, they are all skeptics.

It is very unlikely that you could find any trained scientist to say these words: "I do not believe humans have impacted global climate." For that matter, saying either that you "believe" or "don't believe" in anthropogenic global warming is kind of silly, because a belief system depends upon faith, and science is not about faith. It's about hypotheses, data, observation, experiments, repetition, analysis, rebuttal, skepticism, peer review and theory. In other words, science is about knowledge.

Skepticism is at the core of the scientific method. I am not a scientist, but we were all taught in high school how science works. Science is the application of reason in the search for understanding. It has its own method, practice and internal culture. A scientist constructs a hypothesis--sort of an educated guess-- and then devises a method to conduct an experiment, gather data, analyze the data, and using an open mind, the scientist supports, modifies or rejects the hypothesis. Experiments and data must be replicable and shared, so other scientists can challenge the data, or verify the analysis. Over time, as more data is gathered, and more hypotheses are tested and supported by data, a theory can emerge that explains some observed phenomenon. Theories can then be strengthened or disproved over time, as new scientists devise methods to approach the same theories or hypotheses from different directions.

Climate science includes multiple lines of evidence, vetted and debated with rigor and skepticism for three decades. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that human influence on our climate is "unequivocal." Failure to act urgently means deep problems. The arduous process of getting 192 nations to agree on every word in the Fourth Assessment Summary for Policymakers, including the Bush Administration and Saudi Arabia, would make it pretty clear that the document is too cautious if it tilts one way or the other.

Let's ban the term "climate skeptic". Why journalists and environmentalists ever chose that phrase, I will never know. But it's time to stop.

The word "contrarian" is no better, because there is an honorable tradition in being contrary in science, as Freeman Dyson explained in the New York Times Review of Books in 2008. No one can argue that there could never be a new Copernicus figure in the wings who could turn 100 years of atmospheric science on its head. The point, of course, is that all serious scientist regard that as highly improbable, an event of vanishingly small liklihood.

Dyson, however, has huge stature in the history of science and appears to be without any ideological anti-global warming bent, nor a remunerative relationship with fossil sponsors. This makes him an attractive and independent contrarian, an honorable voice, but one easily exploited by those with economic motives. Unfortunately, many of Dyson's statements on the topic of climate show that he is largely expressing opinions that are not informed by an understanding of the actual data. That would make his climate science opinions no more persuasive than opinions of the top expert in nanotechnology, or molecular biology who hasn't studied the climate data record. James Hansen was perhaps a bit uncivil following a long profile of Dyson in the New York Times Sunday Magazine when he remarked that "Dyson didnt know what he was talking about" and that he (Hanson) had "bigger fish to fry." Hansen apologized for the latter crack, but he only meant that he had to focus on the enemies of truth within the fossil industry who are spending up to $100 million to confuse the public, and didn't have an interest in debating Dyson.

No, the naysayers who get the most ink do not deserve to be called skeptics because they are not really scientists at all. They are PR agency types, modern-day Mad Men.

Doubt is Their Product: How Industry's Assault on Science Threatens Your Health tells the story of the cottage industry of PR and communications professionals who sow doubt about science to avoid or delay negative implications for industry. Of course, the classic example of this is the cigarette industry who toiled for four decades to keep the public puzzled about the health effects of smoking. Science prevailed, but not before many hundreds of thousands died because of the efficacy of the doubt machine.

Naomi Oreskes' impressive speech on this topic connects these PR agency groups with their fossil fuel funders and the handful of contrarian scientists used and abused by the denial industry. All of it flows directly into a political ideology that has focus groups, talking points and message training to help grow doubt and erode confidence in science. Watch Oreskes' YouTube presentation called The American Denial of Global Warming to understand the assault on reason by and for the benefit of the fossil fuel industry. I will never understand why the conservative political philosophy that prides itself on being grounded in reason has allowed this dishonest band to use their political tradition for its economic advantage of confusing the public on climate science.

An up-to-date retelling of the story of climate denial industry is told in James Hoggan and Richard Littlemore's new book Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming. This short book review by the prestigous climate science website RealClimate is full of praise for Hoggan and Littlemore.

James Hoggan's short piece in Yes! Magazine summarizes the story of the cottage industry of professionals who churn out the blogs, op-ed, white papers and distortions of the science. They are not true skeptics, they are deniers. They deny what real skeptics have already carefully examined and found to be true. Without scientific basis, they deny the evidence and the data that the world is rapidly warming due to human emissions of greenhouse gases. They deny that humans and the natural world face grave risks from delaying action.

As difficult as Copenhagen was, not one nation's leader questioned the science. The ministers and negotiators from all 192 countries embrace the basic science and urgency of the problem, but an effective cottage industry of denial and misinformation confuses the public, and makes concerted joint action harder for these 192 presidents to achieve.