When it comes to scientific-style papers, there's a significant difference in tone and language choice between folk who support the science of climate change and those who don't. Unfortunately, the latter tends to be more approachable, emotional, and vehement in its message.
Scientific detachment is great for actual scientific debates, but it doesn't play well with casual readers or the media.
Climate scientists write tentatively; their opponents are certain they’re wrong
Careful language contradicts accusations of alarmism in climate science.
71 view(s)
Michael Shermer wrote a bunch about this in (I believe) Why People Believe Weird Things, back in the '90's. His basic claim was that if you're working in a field you write carefully because A: you don't know, B: you may be wrong, C: your reputation depends on not being wrong. In contrast, people who are primarily political or are engaged in win/lose situations like court cases are rewarded for having strong opinions and taking edge positions. The problem arises that when media try to cover this, they write about both positions, one being a middle-uncertain and one being a far-out-certain, and as such, they produce an inaccurate perception of the situation.