Tosh! More and more scientists are coming out as 'deniers'.

What a pathetic attempt to silence those who question the obvious. Evolution is a fraud and can't be proved beyond a flawless theory. The good Professor has more 'faith' than many. What is needed in science is more honesty. Evolution has been shown as a fraud. We need a few more honest scientist who are not afraid to test this failed theory which continues to delude so many. Thankfully we have a new breed arising who don't just follow spin. The know a number of geologist who are first to admit that evolution is crap.

Your are incorrect, Mr Right Wing. Until the mid 1990s most scientists were unpersuaded, and a good proportion were climate sceptics - at least to the point that the proof on climate change had yet to be delivered. There are now few sceptics left in the serious scientific community.

But the author is correct insofar as most scientists may be good at their science, but they are reluctant communicators. Most scientists have no desire to advocate. That is not their job. They are absorbed by science alone. (And more often than not, their focus on hard information makes them bad public communicators at the best of times. ) So it is left to decision makers to act on the information that hard science provides.

The one problem with that is a few oddball quasi-scientists then steal the media show. Preying on the natural cynicism and denial there is in the broader community, and the lack of scientific acumen in the lay community, the sceptical minority has a much greater influence than their numbers would suggest.

If serious scientists are concerned about where the world is going and don't want to see their work abused, then they have no choice but to override their shyness about public advocacy.

Meanwhile, the media like to manufacture a tussle between opposites. They too have a moral obligation not to allow that entertainment sideshow to get in the way of informative media presentation. To some extent scientists are at the mercy of media.

The question posed by Professor Brook is this.

Is the theory of anthropogenic global warming good (AGW) science or not? Or is AGW a quasi religion?

Brook argues by analogy and with no supporting evidence that to question the credentials of AGW theory is identical to the evolution/creationism or anti-smoking/ pro-tobacco spokesmen debates.

I suggest to the professor that each issue has to be treated on its merits. The argument that because ‘proposition A’ is correct science, therefore ‘propositions B etc.’ must be good science is manifestly absurd.

Good science or otherwise the implication of AGW on the economy, such as the imposition of a carbon tax or carbon trading, is of interest to all - scientists and non scientists alike. To describe doubters of AGW theory in terms formerly applied to heretics by the theologians of past centuries, (sceptics, denialists, contrarians, delayers or delusionists), suggests Brooks is defending a quasi religious orthodoxy.

It is a democratic right to question the AGW theorists. It is a reciprocal right for the AGW defenders to respond; hopefully, with useful and intelligent discussion.

Anti-green - of course people have a democratic right to think whatever they like about AGW. But that's not a scientific debate, that's just people flapping their jaws at each other (democratically, of course).

You can also think the world is any shape if you like too. And if a democratic majority agreed with you, you could even win a vote about it. But that doesn't change the shape of the world, and it's still not science.

So yeah, I guess a lot of climate scientists have a 'right of reply' to the denialists if they wish to use it. But they often don't bother, because they're more interested in science than opinions, no matter how democratic.

As for runner who thinks 'evolution is crap' - care to explain how bacteria acquire genetic resistance to antibiotics?

Mercurius,
Not good enough. You know as well as I, that there are a plethora of scientific arguments freely available on the internet that throw considerable doubt on AGW theory.

When a scientific argument is advanced you dismiss it as “denialism,” else to use your somewhat derogatory term it is “jaw flap.”