Both sides have long since passed the point of being scientific. For example, in science, if the data doesn't agree with predictions then the theory is rejected. This article is referring to the data not being in accordance with predictions, yet it somehow confirms the theory. Every climate model old enough to test has failed, and we won't know if current theories are true for a couple decades. If contrary data doesn't invalidate your theory then it's politics, not science.

For skeptics this takes the form of attacking various parts of the theory. The climate isn't changing, or this isn't a human-caused change, or whatever. For proponents this takes the form of saying everything is a result of and confirms climate change: heat waves, severe winters, storms, droughts, stable weather, unstable weather, Antarctica dropping ice into the ocean, and most of Antarctica experiencing a cooling trend. Both sides are employing similar strategies since both sides are mostly argued by non-scientists. Sure, there's a scientific flavoring to the arguments, but it's hardly enough to mention. Researchers can be trusted to understand their field, but most like to comment well beyond that.