If moon astronaut Harrison Schmitt is sceptical about the degeee to which human activity has any bearing on climate change, then this reinforces my own skepticism about this matter.

Schmitt was not only an astronaut, he was the only geologist to ever walk on the moon. The fact that a gelogist of his eminence is sceptical, conforms with the premise, that geology scientists and climate change scientists hold opposing views on human induced global warming.

Threfore, it seems to me, that this is not an issue with science on one side and the ignorant on the other, it is about two separate sciences holding opposing views.

My inclination is to go with the people who have the hard evidence, and that lies with the geologists. The increasingly shrill prognostications of the climate scientists, who only have theory and computer modelling to back up thir claim, is beginning to look like the defence of an accused person who has nothing but moral outrage with which to defend himself.

I accept that the earth's resources are finite and that fossil carbon is an essential raw material for ever so should be conserved.

However climate scientists often ruin their case by exaggeration. An example I saw recently was the accumulation of ocean heat over twenty years. The claim was that total ocean heat absorption per year, in Joules, is one followed by twenty two zeros (1 x 10^22 Joules in scientific terms). One cubic centimetre of water requires 4.19 Joules of heat input to warm by one degree. There are 1.32 x 10^24 cc of ocean water so the claimed rate of heat absorption will raise the ocean temperature overall by one degree over the next 1000 years. I think my maths is correct but anyone can check it. (The earth's radius is 6371km, the ocean covers 70% of the earth's surface and the ocean depth averages 3700m).

The climate scientists also talk of acidification of the ocean. The ocean is quite alkaline with a pH of about 8.2. The ocean contains;
Sodium 10,500 ppm (parts per million)
Magnesium 1,300 ppm
Potassium 400 ppm
Calcium 400 ppm
Chlorine 19,000 ppm
Sulphate ions 2,600 ppm
There is, by weight, 280 times as much ocean as there is atmosphere so the present 400ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would, if absorbed by the ocean, amount to 1.43ppm. How much difference is 1.43ppm likely to make in the presence of all those other potent ions? The climate scientists should be saying that the carbon dioxide is reducing the alkalinity of the ocean but not by much.

We need to reduce our waste of fossil fuels and other valuable resources otherwise we will substantially reduce the living standards of our grand children's grandchildren.

The author says "Stephan Lewandowsky is a leading AGW scientist"

What absolute rubbish.

from http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stephan-lewandowsky-33172.html

Stephan Lewandowsky is an Australian Professorial Fellow and Winthrop Professor in the School of Psychology at the University of Western Australia. He is a cognitive scientist who has published more than 100 papers, chapters, and scholarly books on how people remember and think, with a particular emphasis on the role of skepticism in the updating of memories.

from http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/bio.php?u=22

Professor Stephan Lewandowsky is a cognitive scientist in the School of Psychology at UWA. His research focuses on the role of scepticism in memory updating and the distinction between scepticism and denial.

He has published nearly 140 papers, chapters, and scholarly books on how people remember and think.

All those books on how to think, Jeremy.

Pity he doesn't read them before he bursts into print about things of which he has no knowledge.

"The author says "Stephan Lewandowsky is a leading AGW scientist"

What absolute rubbish."

No Jeremy, Lewandowsky has pushed his profile aggressively on the basis that he is both a well credentialed scientist, that AGW is real and he can say with authority that scepticism is a product of psychological deficiency rather than being science based.

The distinction between a prominent, self-promoting scientist making such comments and between the equal advocacy of 'real' climate scientists is non-existent because ALL climate science is advocacy; any pretence of scientific validity has been long forsaken by the AGW advocates.

In this respect Lewandowsky IS an AGW scientist because he uses the same methodology as other AGW scientists, which is to ridicule sceptics; in fact, given Lewandowsky's 'psychological' credentials and great insights into human cognitive processes, and how to manipulate these processes, he is probably more of a climate scientist than other climate scientists.

I do agree with you, however, that Lewandowsky's paper is rubbish.

It's an encouraging sign, really: it shows that the AGW movement has given up trying to defend its position with facts and moved on to ad hominem attacks against those who oppose it.

No alarmist really expects their pro-AGW papers to be taken seriously by the scientific community any more; they're issued in order to keep the gullible True Believers forking out taxes and electing alarmist politicians for another year or so, while the perpetrators try to work up another source of lucrative hysteria.