You have it wrong. The AGW is the "dissenting" view. The null hypothesis is that the earth is not warming.

AGW believers have to prove the Null, not the other way round.

See, the null hypothesis is that the earth is NOT warming, so there is no proof needed.

Since the evidence shows the Null as supported, and the models do not match the evidence, there is no need for proof.

You have to disprove the Null in the scientific method.

The only thing I have watched supported by the Koch Brothers is Nova. On PBS.

No.

I keep moving. At a relatively "old" age of mid 40s I have a position where no one else does what I do, and I could probably do it for as long as I like and bring a good salary.

Instead, I am leaving this comfort zone and taking on bigger and more risky opportunities... and bigger payoffs.

Either way, I stay more relevant than if I take the safer option and stay put.

Interestingly, I work for one of those collusion companies.

To go work for one of the other big "pre interent" companies I would likely get hired.

Post internet? Maybe amazon, not Google, for sure. Not many start ups either, unless they wanted a "greybeard" for a reason.

They would see the culture as incomparable, and I would tend to agree. I have a very ingrained "don't risk your production environment" viewpoint, and while I can and do step past it all the time, it is definitely not as compatible with a fast moving tech start up.

I don't think it is flooded.

It is more likely a mismatch between skillsets if you can't find a job.

(that is for a family of 4, btw, not just myself. Much lower burn rate if it was just me, but I like my family =) )

Depends, are you paying me in BitCoins so I don't pay taxes?

I live on just about $5.3K per month, which is what the government lets me keep of my 6 figure income, and I save out of that amount too.

Perhaps this one is more appropriate:

http://xkcd.com/1343/

No thanks. I don't want to be passed up because you have been at the company for 1 day longer than I have, but don't know as much or have better skills than I do.

I will take risk over Union stagnation any day.

If you are organizing your labor, you have agreed that the market pressures do not support your payscale.

Downward pressure on wages does not happen unless the market is flooded, or your skills are not in demand elsewhere.

Don't like it? Get a better skillset and go somewhere else.

As you say, Risk is part of the deal.

Note: I am facing this mentality inside my company right now. I want to move to a department with greater opportunities, greater pay/bonus structure, but risk of being fired if I don't deliver. My co-workers and management are trying to get me to stay, and one argument is the "safety" of our department.
I should probably paraphrase Franklin about security and freedom at this juncture...

In a word: because the AGW crowd stoops to calling those who don't accept their view point "deniers" as in "Holocaust deniers"

If they are so sure of their position, why are they appealing to emotion?

A dissenting theory is not stupidity by default. Much of what the AGW crowd says is demonstrably false. like the 97% of reports statistic, that has been shown to be wrong just by random sampling the reports, and has been retracted by one of the authors.
Yet the AGW supported quoted it.

Their models fail with few exemptions, and yet they say they have the science on their side.

Sorry, the skepticism is well placed.

Maybe you should watch the episode, hmm?

Or you just "know", right?

Sheesh, it is just amazing how quickly people prove the point about how intolerant the "tolerant" are.

Amusingly, Fox News was a great place to see the intolerant side of science.
"The Independents" did a good little piece on climate change.
A climate "scientist" not only refused to debate, but refused to be on the set with an AGW "denier" and chastised them for even having his fellow dissenting scientist on the show to express his views. How dare they give him equal time when "97% of all scientists agree"! Blasphemers!

Combined with Bill Nye's hostile attitude to every question, it did not make a good showing for science.
It looked a lot more like Catholics vs Protestants brought to the 21st century.