Malcolm - I'm happy to clear up any confusion with my recently released book. Drop me a line on ecocriminal@optusnet.com.au and I'll send you a copy.

The basic thrust of the article is irrefutable. Skeptics have been demonised - not put down, or dismissed or overcome with logical argument, but demonised. Even mild expressions of doubt draw very nasty, even bitter comments, often followed by completely baseless accusations of being part of a conspiracy. On top of all that the warmists will then accuse the doubter of being "biased" and even "emotional" about their "beliefs". I have made every effort to remain polite, but often the behaviour of warmists has beggered belief, and the fault is largely on the warmists side.
As for the science which has been debated in these posts, as I point out in the book the science is largely irrelevent. The IPCC is, in effect, running a gigantic forecasting system - in fact, three interlocking forecasting systems, the first one of which depends on economics (for foecasting emissions) not on science at all. Even if the science is right (note the if) that is quite a seperate matter to the forecasts being right, even within the very broad paramters sent in those forecasts, and even if they depended solely on science. Getting forecasts right is very, very, very, very, very, difficult.
At no time have the scientists or even their critics shown any real understanding of what it is these forecasting systems are trying to do. Forecasting is a commercial subject, incidentally, not a scientific one

Peter Hume,

They are good questions, of which I don't have the answer. These are the questions that need to be asked in this debate. We don't have evidence to 100% prove or disprove one thing or the other, so we need to be looking at the level of risk associated with action and inaction.

However, the article calls for scepticism, which I support. My argument is purely that we need to differentiate between healthy scepticism and obstructionist over-scepticism, or denialism, which is stifling debate (just as much as over-zealous 'warmists' are inhibiting constructive debate).

One question I have for hard-line sceptics is this: "How often have they gone out and looked for evidence FOR human-induced climate change?" They are rarely forthcoming with an answer.

Peter Hume

Shall I continue?

Rhetorical device #5- false assumptions. Where did I say, or even imply, that all ethical issues are settled by science? I didn't say it, and never would.

#6- insisting on absolute certainty about future events. Of course we don't know what the impacts of the policies might be. We can guess, or estimate, but we don't know. On another planet, long ago, I was responsible for some government programs and formulated a policy assessment matrix- ranging from inputs to throughputs to outputs, outcomes and impacts and classified as quantifiable, nominal or indicative. Needless to say, the matrix gets fuzzy towards the bottom right- ie it is impossible to quantify some of the impacts- like the extent of shonky work by insulation installers. You can nominate that it might happen, but how do you estimate it?

Moving on to #7: keep on repeating the above 6 rhetorical devices. If you do it often enough it might stick. Like "moving forward"?

If we were to follow Hume's approach, it would seem that we would reduce government to an absolute minimum, as he does not believe it can ever do good. Was it too much, or too little government that gave us the Global Financial Crisis?

Thanks Ho Hum, I got the book out of the library this week and am looking forward to reading. Is OLO in there as a case study?

Peter Hume, you are not arguing about the science, you are arguing about the role of government. Two different things.

Curmudgeon, good to see you weigh in on this! I think "demonised" is a bit over the top and nothing compared to the rants against the CRU, the IPCC and others that I have seen in these and other pages. I do not think that it is demonisation to ask for evidence. The climate scientists have provided mountains of evidence. I note there have been a few mistakes (the galaciers) or misinterpretations (CRU - although I'd argue that selective leaking from illegally obtained e-mails hardly constitutes evidence), but these have been acknowledged and corrected. By now the weight of evidence is in favour of human induced climate change and each extra bit of evidence reinforces the case rather than detracts from it.

As a true sceptic, I will give due consideration to any substantive, peer reviewed science published in a reputable journal, if and when it appears.

TrashcanMan “Stern and other dogmatic denialists posing as sceptics,
. . . .
I'm not saying WILL, I'm saying MIGHT.
. . . .
You're saying DEFINITELY WON'T.”

No, I am saying

on the balance of probabilities and considering the very poor quality of the dubious pseudo-science presented to date

Most likely, "not”

Whilst all variations in climate in the past are a matter of fact, they were not due to any man-made influence.

However, whatever did influence/cause previous climate change variations, it is still quite capable of being the cause of any climate changes today.

I see you choose to call me in a less-than-complimentary manner.

I do not need it and you do not either

So, just make some effort to grow up, when mixing with adults, if only to humour me.

Finally, it is hubris in the extreme to presume man can change the climate of this earth...

The exact same hubris which was held by those who thought the sun orbited the earth.

tcm .. "One question etc etc etc rarely forthcoming with an answer."

That's because it is difficult to disprove a negative.

An example, since this is a common demand from AGW believers.

A chicken runs into the room "the sky is falling"

Skeptics response, "why do you say that, do you have evidence the sky is falling"

chicken little " well, no - but can you prove it's not falling?"

If he ran in saying it is going to rain elephants, unless we receive funding to research how to stop it. Sometime later says, we can stop it by investing in concrete lined hole production, I'm a director of a company that does that! Once funded of course and no elephants rain down on us, the solution is deemed to be a success!

It's going to be difficult to get research funding for such research. Application for funding, "I wish to investigate the premise that mankind is not inducing additional climate change", well where to start eh, that's the rub. It's impossible to disprove.

Anyway, as mentioned before the climate changes, yep, we all agree on that, and most of us agree that land clearing and pollution probably contribute to it - but where do you draw the link that it is "proven" and that taxing CO2 producers will somehow change or reverse this?

Australia, a pissant in the world, has to destroy our economy to satisfy what appears to be more religious passion than scientific method.

If the warming is natural, then any whacky solutions now will be celebrated as being the reason why the climate has changed for the better .. much like the elephant case above.

There is no real debate, because every government funded forum, excludes skeptics .. tell me of one that did not? There have been several recent Climate Change fora, no skeptics allowed - why? If the science is so clear and settled, why not invite skeptics?