A Boston Globe story by John Donnely with a hopeful title about the global warming debate shifting instead gives a platform for global warming deniers to whine about how little attention they are getting.
The first sign of trouble in when Scott Barret of the International Policy Program at Johns Hopkins' School of Advanced International Studies is referred to as a "global warming believer". The word "believer" is, of course, associated with religious faith where one must believe things that can not be proven.
Latter a parade of global warming deniers are referred to with the more generous term "skeptic". Skepticism is an important part of being a scientist but these people are not skeptics. They are extremely intellectually dishonest and hypocritical, refusing to see facts in front of them and picking and choosing pieces of the scientific method to discredit or use to make their story look good.
Thus this reporters description of two groups as "believers" and "skeptics" subtly frames the debate in favor of the skeptics.
What descriptions should he use? I recommend "scientists" and "frauds".