To label someone as "obscurantist," someone who simply goes along with the position of the overwhelming majority of climate scientists, is odd. I am not a climate scientist, so my stance does not veil, shade, or hide anything; instead, it promotes what most climate scientists say. That would be a strange sort of obscurantism, indeed: to believe and promote and bring into light what most authorities believe.
What mystifies me is the project that some people have to promote the claims of only a very few climate scientists; and, to promote nonauthoritative interpretations of research, including the interpretations of U.S. Sen. James Inhofe's office. To wit: Why place a slant on the statements of a NASA scientist, and discount them? It is worth repeating this passage from a recent statement by a NASA scientist:
"Natural, large-scale climate patterns like the PDO [Pacific Decadal Oscillation] and El Niño-La Niña are superimposed on global warming..." And, "These natural climate phenomena can sometimes hide global warming caused by human activities." This is a NASA climate scientist speaking.
The climate scientist in the article says that PDO can hide the effects of global warming. But some say this statement is a gesture of deference toward other scientists, such as James Hansen (who was recently collared by NASA). But, to provide the statement of the NASA climate scientist and then to say he was equivocating--this is an instance of veiling, shading, of obscurantism.