Naomi/Erik, Your article maintains the battle of links and opinions. This will not progress the debate because these are part of the reasons for the current impasse. For every link or scientific opinion that you produce, someone else will provide something contrary. Zero sum outcomes.

It serves absolutely no purpose to go drilling down the same holes. I can agree that the science has been compromised and politicized, that much is blindingly obvious. It is also obvious that the IPCC and CRU has compromised credibility.

That leaves us with a broad body of “other” scientific research that supports what you are saying about AGW. It also leaves us with a similar body of scientific research that offers equal an opposite results. Neither of which is acceptable to the contrary views.

To persistently revisit the history of this debate and to seek to attribute blame for the current impasse is futile and counter productive as it feeds the existing prejudice.

Why can’t we all get behind a proposal to have both sides of the science get together and sort this out? Not politicians, not the media, not the commentariat and definitely not a well intentioned public, just scientists. Surely this is the most rational way to resolve scientific differences. There must be some sort of internationally recognized and mutually acceptable entity that could get access to all the data, get it processed, apply some research probity and have all scientific submissions dealt with in an impartial forum.

Let me put it another way, if science and its associated bodies cannot do this for AGW, what is there to discuss.

Any practical suggestions?

The opposition to global warming orthodoxy which Oreskes and Conway complain about is nothing compared to the ceaseless propaganda for their side. How can anything done by the sceptics possibly compare with the endless well-funded agit-prop conducted by the media, activist scientists and non-government organisations, not to mention the many thousands of otherwise well-meaning activists who quickly resort to abuse and even intimidation if they cannot get their way?
The Department of Climate Change in Australia alone turns over $80 million a year and that is just the tip of the iceberg in funding terms in this country alone. In Australia, in contrast, sceptics had to hand the hat around so that prominent sceptic Anthony Watts could tour here.
A more reasonable, balanced analysis may conclude that popular scepticism about the global warming orthodoxy is growing because people have begun to realise just how thin the evidence is for it, despite all the propoganda. It may finally be penetrating public conciousness that it fact much of it depends on unproven feedback mechanisms programmed into climate models.
On one point I will agree with Oreskes and Conway. Global warming is not a criminal conspiracy. In fact its anatomy is very similar to all the other scare stories (Y2K for example) that have been pushed on the public, it has just been going on for much longer. But the public are now beginning to realise it is just a scare story.

CO2 - the way Watts (and his groupies) rabbets on, you would think he has discovered something we haven't known about.

Loxton - precisely, now watch the holes in the woodwork ('denialist' blogsites, media shock-jocks, 'right-wing' and neo-con think tanks) for scurrilous movement. Wait up! Phoenix has already linked to them.

Runner - just a pretend 'believer'.

Hasbeen - the moniker says it all.

Spindoctor at his usual deceiving best.

Curmud - is the book out yet?

Good summary qanda.

They are so predictable its depressing. I think we have the full set except for Leigh and RPG. I'm sure they'll weigh in soon enough.

At least Curmudgeon didn't repeat that rubbish about everyone agreeing that the Earth is cooling. At least not yet.

If anyone has undermined science, it is the coterie of 'post-normal' scientists and conflicted activists who openly declared that 'scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence'.

This shameless crew of snake-oil salesmen and carpet-baggers have dragged the good name of science into disrepute in pursuit of, on the one hand, a Green-Marxist agenda and, on the other, naked profiteering.

I use an extremely crude test of whether or not global warming is happening: I look at the weather map for Australia each day, and check out when the highest maximum and lowest minimum for each capital city occurred since 1855 or so, to see how they have gone in the last decade. VERY CRUDE ! I check off maximum against minimums for this past decade. So far, over the past three or four months (VERY VERY CRUDE !) they are about even. Some days maximums exceed minimums, some days the other way around.

Read into that what you will :)

Joe