;)
I get a mention in an article in Chemistry World. Written by Philip Ball, the piece considers why (in the author's opinion) so many chemists are sceptics and concludes that its because we all have a contrarian streak.
If I were asked to make gross generalisations about the character of different fields of science, I would suggest that physicists are idealistic, biologists are conservative, and chemists are best described by that useful rustic Americanism, ‘ornery’. None of these are negative judgements – they all have pros as well as cons. But there does seem to be a contrarian streak that runs through the chemically trained, from William Crookes and Henry Armstrong to James Lovelock, Kary Mullis, Martin Fleischmann and of course the king of them all, Linus Pauling (who I’d have put money on being some kind of climate sceptic). This is part of what makes chemistry fun, but it is not without its complications.
It then wonders if the prevalence of scepticism could be "serious".
It's all a bit silly, and the author doesn't seem to have the faintest idea of what the global warming debate is about, but it might be worth a look.